tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN February 10, 2016 3:15pm-7:01pm EST
not interested and if we push the envelope to the point that, here, we know this product is good and it's safe and they are much more enthuse aiastic about getting involved because we made a major investment. that's a good way to incentivize them. >> can i have one more question, mr. chairman? one more question. so, we always think about these diseases as if they were malaria which means outdoor, nighttime, you know, these are indoor, daytime mosquitos and so spraying -- whenever i see the spray trucks, i say, that's a wasted bullet. on the other hand, in our country and in my district we don't have as much water sitting around, freshwater sitting around like you would find in the caribbean or in brazil. if we do a good job on making sure we don't have a lot of pooling water around, is that enough? are we going to be okay until there's a vaccination?
>> it's really going to depend on the local environment. so, how -- >> how about southwest florida? >> well, this is one of the reasons we need a supplemental to give resources so we can look at mosquito populations, trap them, analyze them and then sometimes larva siting can have an impact on mosquito populations. your point is quite correct that the outdoor spraying may have limited impact, if any, on the mosquito population, but we're looking at different ways of doing mosquito control. and in some circumstances what they've done in australia, for example, is use targeted indoor residual spraying for this particular mosquito with as far as we've seen some pretty effective results. but all of that is quite complex to do. >> and let me see if -- just taking off on that point so that i understand it correctly. because, again, we want to get in the game here legislatively so i'm not just asking to take your time here. like a lot of things it always impacts the poor.
and people that, you know, life's never fair. and so, you know, in my house, i have air-conditioning. if i see a mosquito inside, i say to myself it's not chechen gunga, it's not zika so if i get bit i don't have to worry about it. but someone else who may not be able to afford that is more at risk. am i right about that? do i understand the information correctly? >> you are exactly right. if i -- >> but that should drive some of our policy here as well, i mean, pooling water at my house is not as much of a problem as it will be at someone less fortunate. am i right about that? economically speaking. >> if we look at a study done by cdc doctors, scientists of a dengue outbreak in brownsville, matamoros, some years back, the rate of infection was eight times higher than it was in
brownsville and the two driving factors for that were air-conditioning -- >> really. >> -- reduced people's risk 15-fold and smaller house plots which increased crowding and increased risk seven-fold. >> right. and then even if they have ac, they often don't have it in the bathroom where the water is or in the kitchen where the water is. am i right about that, too? so, it complicates it. dr. mendez, you have -- is there anything on my line of questioning that you've heard me say or -- [ speaking spanish ] >> we discussed this last time we were talking about dengue. you were almost prescient that clearly the scenario, the sanitation. i just want to report under the malaria initiative we work with the gates foundation and many other partners on an the vector control program. we are looking at new
insecticide and tools. that capability can be deployed to address this need in the region. >> can i interrupt -- you're making a great point. i got bit at 9:00 in the morning at an auto parts plant that you are never going to air-conditioning. the work environment is an area that we got to keep in mind. i think that's a great point. >> you are correct also that is usually the poor. it's a section of brazil, a poorer air, more tropical area, so, yes, there are local conditions that make it more likely that you will get the disease. the other point i would like to just mention is, of course, we do have for a while now the orphan drug act that provides some incentives for industry to develop vaccines where otherwise market failure would prevent them. we have some tools and we have different things as dr. fauci has alluded, we are looking to see that industry is engaged to finally developing these products so they can reach the
poor in particular. >> you all keep talking. you all are great. and, you know, we need to spend some money on this. real life impact on a lot of people. so, thanks for what you're doing. and thanks for being so patient with me here asking all these questions. >> thank you very much, mr. clawson. two final quick questions. first i remember my first trip to el salvador in the early '80s being struck by how many people -- i remember being in the ambassador's home, the president duarte and there wasn't a screen in the place that i recall and many times in central and south america people do not have screens and even the foreign service officers obviously in their homes, they are at risk it would seem to me if there's no screens. is that something being looked at to promote screening as one of the best practices? secondly, there are press reports that some ngos are planning to exploit child
disability and the potential link of microcephaly with zika to promote abortion. and i'm wondering and i'm hoping and maybe you can verify that none of the $1.8 billion and the president's strategy does not have that agenda. >> thank you very much. yes, we do believe screens may play a role. there are also treated screens that may be even more effective and this is something we're very actively looking at now. i can assure you that the emergency supplemental request does not contain any proposal to change in any way current policy regarding abortion. >> yes, doctor. >> a thank you very much. indeed usaid fully advised by the u.s. law which includes the helms amendment that precludes us from using any foreign assistance resources to pay for the perform anticipates of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate, of course, any person to practice abortions. we don't do abortions.
>> the amendment makes clear that even the promotion is not -- >> correct. even the promotion. the only thing i would say we are so careful with this, we monitor this very carefully everywhere we do work, so one thing we will need to do is part of the request includes some requests because we'll need to have staff deployed to ensure, to ensure, that our partners and the work that gets deployed does not go into areas of the laws that are not allowed. >> appreciate that. you've been tremendous in providing information to both the subcommittees, insights, and i thank you for your service, which is extraordinary, and for allowing us to benefit from that expertise and that knowledge. the hearing's adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.
fauci you can watch this hearing on the zika virus again tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and tomorrow morning we'll bring you live coverage as health and human services secretary sylvia burrwell goes before the senate finance committee to explain her budget request for 2017. the administration is proposing
to increase spending on biomedical research, cancer research and combatting opioid abuse. every weekend on american history tv on c-span3 we feature programs that tell the american story. here's some of the highlights for this presidents day weekend. saturday afternoon at 5:00 eastern margaret oppenheimer talks about her book, who was born into poverty and became one of the richest women in new york. her life including a second marriage to aaron burr. >> what brought these two celebrities together? on burr's side of the altar, the undoubted attraction was the money. a marriage will give him a big pot of money to spend. jumel had her own motivations
for the marriage. on the one hand, she would soon have to begin settling her first husband's estate. burr with his knowledge of the law could help her protect her assets. but the main attraction of the marriage for her was the opportunity to enter social circles that had been previously closed to her. >> at 6:00 on the several war, historian dennis frye on the reactions of both southerners and northerners to john brown's 1859 raid on the federal armory at harper's ferry. the subsequent execution and a nation's divided sentiments as americans headed toward the 1860 election. sunday afternoon at 2:00, historians explore the history of the death penalty in america, including the 1976 greg v georgia u.s. supreme court case that affirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment and monday afternoon at 3:30 eastern author and his torian james swanson compares
the assassinations abraham lincoln in 1965 and john kennedy in 1963. their personal similarities and their differences and their terms in office the backgrounds of the sass sins and the state of the country at the time and he talks about the reaction of the widows mary lincoln and jackie kennedy. >> jackie was very conscious of history and jfk was interested in abraham lincoln and so jackie did have very much in mind the lincoln precedent for the funeral. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to cspan.org. i'm an undecided voter right now. one of the biggest issues in the election for me that isn't being talked about on the democratic side is education. i'm a local union president and one of the things that should be talked about is the shame, blame and punish regime of testing and
perpervasive and we need to rein it in. >> we are supporting bernie sanders because he's the only candidate that will make the changes to get our country back to being a democracy again. >> the system isn't broken it's fixed and we need to make it right for the mevraverage ameri. >> i think it's for the young voters to care about the economy. rubio is a great candidate because he can fix the economy and be good for us to live in. president obama unveiled his 2017 budget request a $4.1 trillion yesterday included in the budget is the pentagon's proposal of nearly $583 billion for defense spending. deputy defense secretary robert work joined the vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff and other department officials to outline the details in the
budget. this portion is about an hour, 15 minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. thanks for joining us as we roll out the fy-2017 defense budget. the defense budget request totals $523.9 billion in discretionary funding for our base budget. and $58.8 billion in overseas contin jenningsy operations for a total of $582.7 billion. that sustains the president's national security and defense strategies and they conform -- the figures conform to the budget levels found in the bipartisan budget agreement. now, when building this program, that informs the budget that we're going to talk to you about today, secretary carter first asked the department to take the long view and the way he did it say how is the next 25 years going to differ from the last.
how is it likely going to be different. the future is inherently unknowable, but we concluded that five of all the strategic challenges would most likely drive the focus of our planning, programming and budgeting processes. now, the first two challenges reflect what we consider to be the most significant shift in the future security environment. and that is a return to an era of great power competition. today we are faced by a resurgent russia and a rising china. both are nuclear armed powers. both are fielding advanced capabilities at a rapid rate. both are permanent members of the u.n. security council and both take issue with some aspects of the principled international order that has preserved stability and enabled the peaceful pursuit of prosperity for decades. both are becoming more aggressive along their peripheries. russia on its western borders e abutting nato and china ins had near seas. even as we continue to cooperate
on issues of mutual interest to both countries, we concluded that department must be prepared for a period of increased competition over the next 25 years. now, the third strategic challenge is a more unpredictable and dangerous north korea. north korea as you know is already a nuclear armed regional power and it is now pursuing advanced ballistic missile capabilities that already threaten our allies and the broader stability of the asia-pacific region. indeed it is committed to developing long-range nuclear armed missiles such as the kn-08 which could pose a direct threat to the continental united states if it is successfully designed and fielded. that is a new thing. moreover another new thing the new leader kim jong-un has demonstrated a propensity for provevation which lends itself to miscalculation and this is very, very, in our view, destabilizing and risky and
north korea, of course, continues to station large conventional forces along the demilitarized zone threaten the republic of korea and for these reasons we must continue to retain forces on the peninsula that can fight tonight if called upon to counter north korean aggression. the fourth strategic challenge involves countering and deterring iran's influence throughout the middle east. iran seeks to become the dominant regional power. and in support of its goal it is pursuing a wide range of destabilizing activities throughout the region, threatening our allies and partners, particularly israel. while we hope that iran will moderate its activities over time, we concluded we must be prepared to counter them as well as any moves that that country takes to violate the recent agreement to curtail its pursuit of nuclear weapons. now, the fifth challenge is our sustained global campaign against terrorist networks. with a near-term emphasis on
degrading and defeating isil and a sustained effort to train afghan forces to defeat the remnants of al qaeda and counter the spread of isil in south asia. now, from our perspective, the campaign against global terrorist networks will be an enduring condition for much of the next 25 years. and we have to be prepared to monitor it constantly, respond to and treat it when necessary. now, i want to make clear that this list does not reflect a prioritization of strategic threats. should miscalculation occur or deterrents fail, the department of defense has to be able to provide the president with options to respond to possible unexpected contingencies involving any of the four aforementioned state powers as well as those associated with the one enduring condition, our global fight against global -- against terrorism, and so we therefore sought to develop a portfolio with the capacities,
capabilities, and readiness to address all five of these strategic challenges with some degree of risk and that's important to note. the present budget allows us to execute our national military and defense strategies. however, given the current level of funding, we simply cannot reduce every risk associated with every strategic challenge. we, therefore, developed a program that addresses all five and the secretary said if we cannot reduce risks in all of the challenges we have to prioritize. so, he told us to do three things. first we should prioritize strengthening our conventional deterrent against the most advanced potential adversaries. when doing so he didn't expect us to matched a advanced a versary capabilities either numerically or symmetrically. he told us to offset their strengths using new technological, operational and organizational constructs to achieve a lasting advantage and
to strengthen deterrence. now, like previous offset strategies the advanced capabilities we are developing for our advanced competitors are directly applicable against lesser states. and also strengthens deterrent in that regard. second with respect to the services, the secretary asked us to focus far more on shape than size. he asked us to try to achieve the best balance of capacity -- what we call size or force structure -- modernization or capability and readiness within the existing budget level. seek that balance. and in terms of readiness he expected us to focus on reconstituting full spectrum readiness. and he charged us to place heavy emphasis on innovation along four broad lines of effort. one, ensure we retain the advantage we enjoy in our human capital. our people are the best and most powerful competitive advantage that we have across all five
challenges. and the force of the future aims to keep it that way. secondly, update our plans and operational concepts. the secretary and the chairman are pushing the department to look at each of these challenges in terms of transregional, multidomain, multifunctional answers. don't just look at it regionally. look at it by exploiting our global posture. third, he asked us to seek game-changing technologies and make more discrete technological bets that exploit our advantages as well as adversary weaknesses. and finally he asked us to pursue widespread institutional reform. he wants us to become a lean and agile 21st century organization and, just as importantly, we want to free up additional resources to devote to other programmatic needs and buy down any residual risk that remains in the program. i'd like to pass it over to the vice chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff general paul selva and then we'll be happy to take some of your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary, good afternoon, everyone. let me start by expressing my deepest appreciation to this team of professionals who are the men and women who worked the long hours to develop this year's defense budget submission. no easy task even in the best of times. this year we face the task of finding ways to address expanding and complex challenges to our national security interests despite the enduring strain of constrained resources. the result of this collaboration is what the chairman, the service chiefs and i believe is the best possible balance of capacity, capability and readiness investments based upon the resources available. make no mistake today's strategic security environment is more unpredictable than i have seen in my 35 years of service. our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been
battling terrorism around the globe for nearly 15 years. the pervasive threat posed by violent extremist organizations has been and remains an immediate threat. yet, focus on this protracted fight in combination with the burdens of sequestration and budget uncertainty has come at a heavy cost, degrading readiness, delaying modernization, and decreasing our overall capacity. and as you are well aware the rest of the world has not remained stagnant during this time. concerns posed by increasingly aggressive state actors with mounting military capabilities also demand our attention. as deputy secretary work just highlighted we face growing challenges from russia and china which are asserting their power at the spe at the expense of regional security. continues to plague the korean peninsula and its neighbors and iran's activities which promulgate its role as the chief
exporter of terrorism and instability. this budget works to invest in capabilities needed to meet these growing challenges while to the best extent possible preserving force structure and advancing to the best extent possible preserving force structure and advancing readiness. for the army it supports the ongoing transition back to high end combat and full spectrum capabilities. it invests in the navy's lethality improvements in surface capability, tactical aircraft and investments in advanced undersea capabilities. it maintains the marine corps' preeminent role as the nation's most capable expeditionary response force. and for the air force budget this invests in high end capabilities across the range of domains that we expect our air force to respond in while attempting to improve readiness through training for the high end fight. in closing, this proposal reflects the hard choices we've made in the context of today's security environment and
economic constraints. and it does not leave much room for needed flexibility. we're in the process of engaging congressional leaders and their staffs to address their questions and concerns with this budget. i look forward to continuing to work to eventually get an approved budget which addresses the military readiness concerns of today and provides for the investment and flexibility which allows us to continue to address our national security interests into the future. thank you again for being here today. we look forward to taking your questions. >> for either one of you or both if possible, i just wanted to ask a couple questions on the oco accounts. first, can you talk about the thinking behind the new $200 million that's aimed at countering threats in north africa, west africa and that region, and what you expect to buy with that money. and then for the afghanistan amount, about what troop levels will that support in afghanistan for the coming fiscal year. and then maybe just an overall the increase in oco funding,
what do you expect to buy with the extra from the $5 billion to the new $7.5 billion, what are you hoping that buys? >> well, let me just give a little overview on oco and then i'll turn it over to general selva. the question for $58.8 billion, let me emphasize that was built from the bottom up. we said what do we need to do to do what we need to accomplish in afghanistan? the president as you know made a decision to keep 9,800 troops through some time this year, probably through the fighting season and then down to 5,500 at the end of the year. this budget fully funds that. it fully funds all of the operations that are going on in both iraq and syria. and it asks for iran -- iraq train and equip as well as syria train and equip. so this oco budget provides us everything we need, we believe, right now to execute our global operations. that left over about $5 billion to cover base needs.
and we didn't have a specific -- i'd have to defer to mike on the specific $5 billion. but generally $5 billion was able to address base needs. >> the only thing i would add to that is to reemphasize the fact that in the oco budget as submitted we have funded all of our anticipated operational costs both in south asia as well as across the north and west africa portions of our transregional fight against terrorism and the violent extremist organizations. that has all been fully covered. each of the services as you get their briefs later today will likely be able to cover the detail of their requests inside of that budget. but we've covered all the anticipated expenses in that endeavor. >> what about this $200 million for some of the african areas? what is the thinking behind that? what is the threat you're trying to address?
can you expand on that a little bit? >> i'll expand briefly. if you think of the threats that exist across all africa, al shabaab in the east, boko haram in the west, the newly formed isil province in libya, the monies that we've put into the budget to address those threats in africa are to be able to work with indigenous forces as well as partner forces to get at those three particular threats. and others that might emerge. >> it goes back -- let me just follow up. this goes back to what the secretary and chairman are saying. we have to approach this as a transregional problem. we have to approach the problem all the way from the western coast of africa all the way to afghanistan. and potentially in southeast asia. so none of these problems we look at just as a central command problem. we look at it what do we need transregionally to address these threats. and the things that we are anticipating doing in northern
africa would be in the broader support of our global campaign against terrorism. tony. >> question to you and then to the general. this is the last obama administration budget. you've been discussing within the building the looming wave the next administration faces in terms of nuclear modernization and air force issues after 2021. how serious is that and what are some of the options? general selva, since august during the republican debates, there's been a constant drumbeat of claims that the american military has been gutted. i didn't want to ask mr. work this. how do you address someone watching hearing it's been gutted and you're talking about degraded overall capability, reduced modernization. can you put this in context in terms of the condition of the military today versus the hyperbolic word gutted? >> let me talk about the bow wave and turn it, tony, and talk about the fiscal risk that we see going forward. the primary problem we're faced with is we like the budget deal. we applaud congress being able
to provide us with two years of stability. but in 2018, we are planning on going up again significantly above the sequestration level caps. if you take all the money of '18 and '21, that's $100 billion we are counting on we don't know for certain we are going to get. the second thing is the future of oco. how will oco be done in the future? that's another big uncertainty. we have money that is in oco that should be in base. it just happened over the last 14 years of war and we have to address that. and then as you said, starting in '21, between '21 and '35 about $18 billion a year to reconstitute and recapitalize our strategic nuclear deterrent. if that comes out of the conventional forces, that will
be very, very, very problematic for us. so, rather than talk about the bow wave, there is future fiscal risk that the country, congress and future administrations and this administration must come to grips with because as soon as we have a better understanding of that, we'll know for sure that our defense strategy is on the right track. >> i won't be argumentative but i will take umbrage with the notion that our military has been gutted. i stand here today a person that's worn this uniform for 25 years. no time have i been more confident saying we have the most powerful military on the face of the planet. do we have challenges? of course we do. when you are faced with a global set of threats, you have to make choices on where you focus your energy.
and so as i stated we focused our energy on this violent extremist terrorist thread for the better part of 15 years. that consumes the readiness of the force to do the other tasks we are given as part of our mission. recovering that readiness is a challenge that each of the services will face but i would say we're far from gutted. that you have in your joint force today the most powerful army on the planet, the most flexible and determined air force on the planet, the most capable navy on the planet and a marine corps no one can match. i would argue that's far from gutted. i don't engage in politics. this is the reality of the men and women that serve in our army, our air force, our navy and our marine corps. they're the best the world has to offer and we'll keep them that way. >> we have time for one more. gordon? >> two quick questions. can you kind of expand a little bit on the lcs cut? we have seen a lot of that but
if you could expand on your thinking. also, update us on the growth to 90 caps of isr and if you see that's delayed, accelerated in what in this budget addresses that growth? >> thank you, gordon. first question. lcs is a perfect example of what the secretary meant by focusing on shape rather than size. the requirement for the u.s. navy is a battle force of 308 ships. in that 308 ships, there's a requirement for 88 large surface combatants like a class cruiser or a guided missile destroyer and there was a requirement for 52 lcss. for a total of 140 surface combatants. if you take a look at last year's plan, the navy was going to build up to 321 ships and then come down. and we asked ourselves, what can't we buy? because we are going from 308 to 321. we said, well, we can't buy lot of capability. and so, it was a very -- this is not an indictment against the lcs.
if we didn't like the ship, we would stop buying it. but those 12 ships would take us from 321 to 309 ships. and it allowed us to put more money into torpedoes, p-8s and tactical aviation, so it was more about achieving that balance between size, readiness and modernization. we think the navy is much stronger because of this decision. and, the plan we will get to 300 ships in fy-'19. we'll get to 308 ships in fy-21 which is the requirement and say above 300 ships through fy '30. this was the type of challenges and the trades that the vice chairman was talking about where you look at it and say, would i rather have the 12 extra ships or would i rather have all the capability that that allows us to buy? and we made a decision to go for
capability. on the isr caps, we are building the 90 low-end permissive isr caps like reapers and predators. 60 will be healthy isr caps in the air force which means they'll have ten pilots per line, per orbit. and that is a sustainable force structure. the army is going to add 16 caps in what we call the gift map, the global force allocation management plan and they will have 16 orbits. then we're going to buy ten government-owned contractor operated orbits which will be our bumper i mean, our shock absorber. that gets us to 86. four orbits are supporting our soft forces today. that's how we get to 90. we won't get to 90 until the latter part but we're on track. there's no slowdown. that plan is fully funded. and we hope that congress will support us in that goal. general selva, did you have anything? >> nothing to add.
you got it all. >> thank you again. we are -- >> lcs, i have to push you on this one. why did you add one more lcs for two when in september the secretary said you will get one in '17? can you square that? >> the secretary is flexible and the navy came back in and said, hey, in terms of competition, it would help us if both of the yards had a ship in '17. both could compete and then do the down select. it was just -- it doesn't change the 40. we are going to 40 ships. it was just a slight change in the profile. and it was allowing us to make sure that the down select to the frigate, the frigate was a way to do it. so again, on all of these things, these were hard choices. choices between size, modernization and readiness. and each of the services are going to explain to you this afternoon the choices they had to make and the choices we approved to achieve what general selva said is we think is the best balance. thank you very much.
and thank you for being here this afternoon. >> thank you all. >> two minutes we'll get started with undersecretary mccord and the general. we'll get more detail of what the deputy secretary was talking about. give me just one minute. >> oh, it's magic. the deputy secretary's a very tall guy. >> ready to go? is this the height -- is it all right or -- i can bring it up a little bit. >> i want to find the happy medium, sir. >> all right if i have water?
>> of course. >> does this need to be -- >> it's on at all times. >> they can pick it up from there, sir. again, this is undersecretary of defense comptroller mike mccord and on the left, the g-8, for the joint staff general anthony iarti. mr. mccord, when you're ready. >> thank you, mark. good afternoon. first of all, i want to say the deputy and the vice chairman have done a great job leading the internal effort which stretches over many months, seems like forever sometimes. since this is the last time i'll likely be doing this, i went to recognize the hard work that goes on all across this building in the department by so many people across in the services and the combatant commands and osd and obm to get the budget done. i especially want to take a second to recognize the enormous contribution of two people, my colleague jamie moyn who leads a great team over there. you know, it wasn't -- i'll get to the second one in a second i guess. it wasn't until early november as you know we got a budget deal that told us what top line we'd get for the work we've been doing starting back in late
spring and we were far along in the process in building this budget and really had to scramble the last six weeks or so to cut $17 billion. i'll explain that number. in the last six weeks and probably the last ten days of the process we knew what congress has done in the '16 budgets in the omnibus appropriations bill so a lot of information came late. my staff in particular worked through the holidays to wrap this up and get a quality product. and i want to close my introductory comments by thanking my staff who did the work from november on. we were missing and are still missing the top career budget official in the department. he's been out for illness for an extended period of time. we hope to get him back. meantime, mary has done enormous work to do his job as well as her own and i want to thank her for that. if i could go to the first
slide. the deputy kind of covered first of all sort of three things here. one, there's the facts. just the numbers. when's in the base. what's in the oco. what's in the total budget. the deputy touched on that. you can read that i hope. second, he talked at some degree of specificity of the guidance to us and the idea that you have to fight and win across a range of challenges. and that's really i think the important place to start is what problems are we trying to solve, what problems does the secretary want us to solve. for anyone who's listening who didn't read the secretary's remarks from a week ago, i would encourage people to go to the defense.gov website and start with his speech on the 2nd for
what he's trying to do and a little more meat on the bones on the five challenges which is what this budget is then trying to address and then finally again the deputy touched on this. sort of a word on the future as we hand it off to the next administration doing the '18 and '19 budget and so on. the sequester issue is still hanging around like a bad cold. it needs to be taken care of. our plans have been consistent and we'll talk about that across several years. but our plans aren't going to work if we can't get the sequester problem solved and get back up to the level of resources that we need to keep this progress going. we think we're making progress in this budget. i'm going to skim past the next slide which shows you the history of the base budget and the oco budget layered on top of it since 9/11. we have done a slide like this before. i want to move to the next slide after that and drill down just a little bit on the three-year period that we have just been through or are about to start. so what's important about the budget situation, budget deal? a couple things. from '16 to '17, the two bars on the right we have about $2.5
million more this year than last year and that was very flat from year to year in the base budget an was exactly flat in the oco budget for those two years so we're only about $2.5 billion. what i would call kitchen table math. what did you have this year as compared to what did you have last year. and if you do the math, the pay raises that we have in the budget basically consume about that amount of money. so, taking that aside we really had just a flat amount of money once we got done with the compensation part to work with. so that really speaks to the deputy's point about this being more about the shape of the budget than its size because the size isn't growing but if you look back to the year before, one of the reasons that the secretary will say and said he was grateful for the budget deal is that it jumped us up a good $20 billion, $25 billion where we were stuck in a rut and certainly much rather be in the 520 neighborhood and that's what
the deal did for us and a better place, a better jumping off point for getting the next jump up in the future. so again, when the secretary talks about being grateful for the deal i think he's speaking primarily in terms of it was compromise. he was calling all year for compromise. make a decision. get something done. when he says grateful, not that he had to get everything he wanted to think it's a good deal and progress. so we got some stability, which was important for the troops, for our own planners, industry partners and in that sense the deal both a in that sense the deal is both a step up to closer to where we think we need to be and also again near term certainty and probably the best that we were going to expect under the circumstances. if i could get the next slide, i just want to take you back a second to where we were a year ago at this time. we were coming off the second year of the murray/ryan deal and not knowing what was going to happen and we were seeking you might remember in last year's budget a huge jump after three years of being stuck down in the mid 490s for the base budget we were seeking to go up about $35 billion.
very large increase. that's what we were trying to accomplish last year. now i'll flip to this year's picture of where we are now. so the budget deal came in. raised the caps for obviously for '16 and '17 in the bipartisan budget agreement from last november. didn't give us everything we wanted but jumped us up a good bit of the way. so what we need -- you know, this year our top line is no drama there because it was set by the deal the president signed last november. we are looking ahead a little bit to the future. we need to jump up again. just as we did from the '13, '14, '15 level and we need to make another jump in '18. if you look at two more things i just want to point out about this chart. this i think has been the most consistent administration that i have ever seen in my 30-something years in terms of the outyear profile, if you look at the '15 budget on that chart, the '16 budget, the '17 budget, in purple, blue and green on this chart, very similar top lines. what you used to see all the time, every five-year plan is
slanted down lower and lower than the previous five-year plan. we have stuck through our position pretty well. the size of force we think we need, the resources we think we need. this chart also speaks to the point the deputy was making dabt $10 billion, the caps in law have four more years in force if nothing changes from fy-'18 to '21. the difference between out position of those three lines and the red line about $100 billion. $25 billion a year or so per year over the next four years is what's at stake for us between the resources that we think we need and what we're going to get if a law is not changed. okay. if i could get the next slide, so i'm going to pivot for a second to the top line picture to the secretary's priorities. again, the deputy talked about this.
i don't think we need to say too much more here. the thing that strikes me about what the secretary wants us to be doing is just the breadth i think of what we need to be addressing. our military, as the vice chairman said, is the best in the world, and probably nobody else would contemplate us being excellent in all the things the secretary wants us to be excellent at. it's to fight and win today and far into the future. you think about the five challenges the deputy enumerated. they span europe, middle east, asia. so the world's geography, time from now into the future and domains, the typical air, sea, land, as well as space and now cyberspace. so just the breadth of what we're attempting to be excellent at i think is something really only our military could do. now, if i could go to the next slide, i'm going to do something i wouldn't normally do in a
the first two thingless here, being able to move some expenses to the oco budget as laid out in the agreement and to take advantage of the favorable economic assumptions solved about $10 billion of that problem for us. now that still leaves us, you know, an $11 billion problem or so, which is about 2% of our top line let's say. we have some efficiencies which we'll talk about later which will grow over time in the first year that are in the half billion dollar range, and so that kind of smallish red bar there. and then the program changes to cut things out of our plan is the other -- the bulk of the $11 billion. so, i'll flip -- well, we can flip to the next slide now. so what did we -- what's in that green bar of $11 billion? again, let me just take a second to talk about when's not in there and you don't see on this chart. we didn't cut compensation. there's no net reduction to the compensation portfolio even as we look for $17 billion to save. so that portfolio as well funded as before. i'm not going to say there wasn't one change to anything in the department but generally the force structure plan we had before is a force structure plan we have now. we did look at modernization. modernization took the brunt of the reduction. i would say not in a stupid way. we didn't term nate programs. we didn't break multi-years. neither on the people side did we issue riff notices, things like that. we didn't do the things to involve flailing around and breaking things. we were careful and thoughtful in how we approached this. but students of defense reductions -- i think everyone would be familiar with this that's studied this over time. especially when you have kind of a short-term, in this case, a two-year budget deal that tells you, you have less money and you
don't know what the future holds and doesn't make sense to change the force structure, riff people. so we went to the modernization account, which tends to be the most volatile and that's where we had to take some risk. both -- so you will see, for example, 24 less black hawks. five less for the air force, fewer b-22s. the aircraft procurement accounts in total, $4 billion less, less money for shipbuilding. these are not maybe things that we love to do, certainly, but as we talked about protecting readiness recovery, that people are the most important asset and with the kind of trying to make a rapid change in force structure of a two-year deal, this is where we had to go. also, we took risk in installation which is already lower than any of us would like it to be. we had to take further risk there. we can talk more about this later perhaps, but modernization is where we had to take the brunt in terms of getting the number down in six-week period of time between when the budget
deal hit and when we had to be done. okay. now let me talk about when's in the budget. which will kind of constitute the rest of our talk here. the force structure levels as i said are what we have been planning for some years. should not be any surprises in there to experienced observers like yourself. consistency has really been a hallmark i think of this administration in terms of resource levels, things like that. i will -- we'll talk a little bit later about the force of the future, as well. the force structure which is on the next slide, again, the numbers look pretty familiar to everyone. the new start force levels on the nuclear side. the deputy's talked about the ship count level. one at lake and heath in the oco budget, same as last year. and we're still -- that's the marks on the wall i think everybody knows, 980,000-person army total of which 450,000 in the active. that's the mark on the wall
we're moving toward. so we're dropping, as we had planned and said next year to 450 to reach the kind of objective level. the marine corps stablizing out at 182. again, there shouldn't be much of any surprise here, both to folks in here and to the troops around the country and around the world. same thing on the next slide. the end strength number. i think this is important to have out here for the troops to see. again, people should recognize the numbers. there's virtually no change in the reserve force side. three changes of which do not exceed 1,000 people. on the active side, the only really major change of last year is the army dropping 10,000 and that has been planned fuçhó5 time. the next slide i'm going to try and just briefly touch on some of the major programs in the budget.
joint strike fighter. again, this is one where we would have loved to have more airplanes. this is fewer than we were funded last year and we had planned but, again, this is something that, you know, taking $17 billion out in 6 weeks is a challenge, and so you have to look at some of the large programs like this where the money is. others were -- other programs, especially due to their contractual situation, like the tanker, of course, were protected and the multi-years on the submarines and ddgs. that also of course plays into the services thinking and our thinking of where do you have multiyears, where do you not. unlv, five launches. if you can't see the quantities there in this year of which three would be completed. the ddgs are all flight ships. again, the submarines and ddgs have both in the multiyear category. the deputy talked on the next slide about innovation and i'm not going to dwell on that. there are a couple of things on there that were started last year, some started this year and this really -- innovation agenda which the deputy can talk about at good
deal more expertise than myself really spans the gamut of smaller, nimbler efforts, to large programs or larger efforts that could have significant war fighting impacts. secretary mentioned one last year. the arsenal plane. there's a variety of projects here, classified and unclassified that we're pursuing. at this point i'd like to turn it over to the general to talk about the readiness and the people side of the budget for a few minutes. >> good afternoon. want to say readiness is a critical part of our efforts and in this budget. this budget funds service efforts to address readiness from the standpoint of both ensuring that units are prepared for the missions that they will encounter today as well as the demands of the future and ensuring that the joint force is ready to accomplish missions as they come out in the future and
that is the recovery if you will of joint force full spectrum readiness. and its reorientation. the joint force has been engaged in combat operations over the past ten years or more. in one form of conflict. and now we must shift focus to the full spectrum that your outline implied as part of the five challenges that were talked about earlier. resources are programmed for this to occur. however, resources are not the dominant factor in readiness recovery. it's different in every service. and it's also impacted by mission demands and operatal tempo that may be occurring at any time as occurred today. so resources are not the dominant factor in readiness recovery. force capacity, up tempo, maintenance throughput all add to this challenge of recovering readiness. the services will talk in more
specificity later about this. as we look at generating this type of readiness in the services and in the joint force we are really talking in the early portion of the next decade. before we see having regenerated in the force the tul spectrum capability that we need. and we remain dependent on overseas contingency operation funding for current operational demands and future reset requirements. next chart. just highlight here a few of the -- again, the services will talk later. each of the services have their plans to regenerate full spectrum readiness. in the case of the army it's about training individual and at the collective levels, ensuring that combat training centers, units go through combat training centers. we funded 27 rotations in 2017.
this allows the army to achieve full spectrum readiness, to get leaders and soldiers into the environment to have a full spectrum capability. the navy's focus is in level loading or loading maintenance requirements to support con sis tint and maintainable maritime force. the marine corps will continue to focus on crisis response and expeditionary-type capabilities to maintain both the air and ground components to ensure they're ready for missions and the air force will balance between flying hours and weapon systems sustainment. to continue full spectrum readiness gains. the air force is intensely involved in the operations that are occurring today in our missions abroad and time will be needed to regain combat readiness. and finally socom will maintain
funding for deployments and sufficient search capacity for plans and contingencies and looks to the 2020 time frame to regain its full spectrum readiness. if i could go, i have one concluding chart from my portion here regarding the all-volunteer force. the first thing i'd like to point out is that as the chairman views this, it's about comprehensive and wholistic view of compensation for our force. and the health of the force is viewed wholistically. our service members train, do they have the proper equipment? are we ready to take on the tasks that we're assigned? i second general selva's and others here today the notion that we have the best military in the world. it's resilient and dead katded. but it's also running pretty hard. the 2017 request for a 1.6% pay raise for our service members within -- top line constraints reflects the unique demands and
recognizes the unique demands and sacrifices of our service members. it buys down that gap between -- between where we want to be and where we are so the increase in that pay is the largest one over the last four-year period and it's an important part of what we did as we looked at -- and the chairman and secretary assessed this portion of the budget. you'll also see modest modifications for the blended retirement system. and i'll just talk very briefly here. first, to increase the force shaping ability of the services to provide great flexibility and continuation pay of that portion of the law that was passed to create blended retirement. and to start matching contributions later to incentivize retention. next, we want to obviously ensure nearly equivalent
lifetime benefit here and increase the defined contribution matching rate. and allow it to occur until the end of service. as opposed to a particular point in time and a service member's career. finally, we'll propose that the department will propose modernization and improvements in the military health care system. to increase value or simplicity, greater choice and better access is concerned. increase the skills and proficiency of military health care providers to provide them with opportunities to treat the beneficiaries for the benefit of the entire joint force. and to have their skills honed on a day-to-day basis. and then finally, have a balanced approach to fiscal sustainability as part of this package. that will be included as a legislative proposal. so with that i'll pass it back
to mr. mccord. >> thank you. almost done. so the next slide beyond kind of the traditional parts of compensation, i think the secretary has really put a lot of effort as i think you're all aware into what he calls force of the future. and the point of -- there's a couple of things. first of of all, in november he gave a speech what he called permability and making it easier to serve their country in uniform or civilian, for a career or a shorter period of time, a few years and those of us having been here a couple of years, the hiring process is just one of the things that could be improved. the second aspect, the second release of force of the future was done just about a little over a week ago, late january, and it had to do with the family portion, the child care hours
expansion with fertility benefits, mother's rooms being installed and also paternity and maternity leave so building on everything the general was just talking about, secretary's very, very cognizant of the fact we're competing for talent in the private sector of this country and wants us to make sure we are and remain a top tier, top tier employer. i think you could argue we already are. you look across the span of the retirement benefits, education benefits, the health care system, we already are a good employer but the secretary knows that we are competing for talent and people, especially trying to raise a family, the child care and maternity, paternity things to maybe move the needle and continue to attract and retain the best people so i think it really speaks to the idea that compensation and quality of life
for you and your family which is, of course, as the saying goes you recruit the member, you retain the family, is beyond just the paycheck and i think that's really to me the heart of what force of the future is about. not the particular cost of the benefits, modest in the scope of the budget for the new packages and really more of a mind-set to be competitive for talent just like technologically. next i want to just talk a little bit about some of the reform proposals that are in this budget and some of which have been in the past budgets. i'm on this chart, i kind of bend them into two categories, those where the proposal is same or substantially the same as what we have proposed before and not yet accepted by the congress. the navy's cruiser modernization plan. and also, the brac, base realignment and closure proposal. the year proposed is now 2019. it's physically impossible given the restrictions on the activities to have one in 2017 based on where we are now. we have other proposals that you've seen before from us that
we modified in some way. the air force a-10 is one that word has gotten out beforehand. the general was just describing the tri-care proposal which is similar financially to last year's but is a different proposal than last year's and we have dr. woodson here today if we need to go into that in more detail, and we have plenty of material by the way posted on the web today with pages of information about the tri-care proposal, specific prices, co-pays, things like that. we have an overview book that's been published today. third thing then is commissary proposal. this year's proposal is a different proposal. a more modest proposal for financially that only tries to get savings out of the business end, does not touch the benefits. that's different in an important way. i think from the troops' perspective to last year. so, again, probably the most well-known reform agenda
proposals. things where we believe that given the continued pressure on the budget, hard choices need to be made. the budget deal, good as it was for us to give us stability, at the end of the day, reduced resources from last year's plan and the case as compelling for the need for reform as before. we didn't get more money from the budget deal and so we have to make some hard choices. the next slide is maybe somewhat lower visibility but just indicative of the breadth of things we're trying to do across the department from acquisition reform to the mandate both imposed on ourselves and imposed on us by congress. the audit effort. something that we -- a new review that the dcmo will lead to look at the service contracts to make sure they're still needed. sexual assault prevention efforts. goldwater nichols review act and
the last one a little bit. everybody is probably recalls the, you know, massive breach of personal information of people last year. the so-called opm hack. there's a proposal in this budget which involves d.o.d. and not limited to d.o.d. to the system that we're going to move to, we propose to move to in this budget, a new entity under opm involved, responsible for investigations. not a mission of opm mixed in with their own missions. it's a specified mission of a new entity inside opm to do the investigations sort of like agency responsibility resides with the government-wide agency to the investigation. the information produced by that investigation would then under our proposal be responsibility of d.o.d. to protect that information behind our secure systems so we would become a service provider if you will.
the information, the i.t. side of the process for the entire government. a new entity for the entire government including us for doing the investigating. that proposal will come in a different part of the budget. our budget funds are part of that proposal. last thing i want to talk about before we take questions is the budget, which the deputy talked about a little bit. we have continuing afghanistan effort in response to the question that was asked before. the average troop strength is about 9,700 for '16. dropped to about 6,200 in '17. it's the average number of -- throughout the year. the average strength in the iraq/syria inherent resolve effort is roughly constant between the two years. so the increase in funding is more driven by the pace of
operating tempo than it is by having more personnel involved. there was a question about the africa part. we are trying to give them a little more help to have robust resources to deal with a fluid situation that spans is up a large swath of geography from al shabab to boko haram. probably the biggest increase in here is the european reassurance initiative. something we've had good success. this more than triples what we got last year. and pretty much quadruples what we asked for last year in this effort. the biggest increase in this area is to start prepositioning equipment in europe to enable faster response and to provide greater deterrence. basically a doubling of sort of the up tempo. to have our units training, exercising with our european partners. we're going to move to a so-called heal to toe basis where we're over there constantly on the ground
exercising. that's a doubling of the operating budget part from what we had last year. on top of that, we had a prepositioning aspect. just to touch on what the deputy i hope made clear. everything on this page that we have in the categories. what it's the iraq/syria operations, afghanistan operations. the european reassurance initiative. we built the numbers based on what we thought was -- based on requirements, what we felt was needed, what was executable. not constrained at all by the budget deal. and then at the bottom you see kind of what was left to use up the rest of the head room that
was made available to us by virtue of the wording and the budget agreement. so just to hit the last slide. basically as the deputy said, what we're all about here is trying to within a flat amount of money from last year to this year. again, predicated on future being the higher level of resources. to free up money for higher priorities. so with that, happy to take questions and, mark, are you going to handle that? >> 15, 20 minutes. both gentlemen have appointments. so with that in mind, sidney. >> there is a path to recovery. i see things like, you know,
rebuilding of army corps readiness plateaued. once we get to certain conditions of 2020, then 8 to 10 years to get to readiness. certainly very long -- ofrp will not get back to three carriers deployed and three surge apparently ever will be two and three. it seems like this is a very long back road to readiness. because of lack of funding or too much demand. >> a dollar today does not necessarily, although it certainly is required. it's necessary but not sufficient to achieve this full spectrum readiness you're referring to. the calculation includes time and availability for units. some of the deployments our units have in fact contribute to
readiness but some do not. to accomplish the tasks we're assigned and to meet the mission requirements in the context of the environment in which our units are operating. it does not necessarily lend itself to the full spectrum readiness that the enabling units have to have. it's a function of time. it's a function of having the adequate resources. having units that have available to go through this and have the opportunity to go to the combat training centers to participate in the high end training environments and exercises to achieve those. and, sidney, it's going to take time. before we start to see regeneration rates exceeding where we need them to be. it's not linear. it's certainly not as fast as we'd like it to be. we'll continue to work that hard with the resources that we've
allocated to it. >> can you tell us how much in savings there are in the personnel reform, the tricare and the other things, how much money is being saved through those reforms? >> we can provide that. my recollection, it's just under $1 billion. we'll get that for you. >> reforms offset the benefits that are being added on? >> yes, within the compensation proposal. within the compensation portfolio, we didn't really move
any money in in or out of that. there are things where we're making things more generous and then there's the tricare, where there are some savings that we think we need to do. or try to move it more towards where it should be. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. the house armed services committee, they've been saying that in this budget you're robbing the base budget to fund oco neshtives. i see that, you know, in your slide, where you show $11 billion in program cuts, is the thinking that maybe if they increase by $11 billion you would be able to get all that stuff back? >> these numbers were well known to everyone i think. we funded the base budget to what congress agreed to. >> i understand, but that's what they've been saying, you know, in the public, to the media. that's why i was wondering what
your reaction to that accusation was. >> i would say that, you know, if you look at the history of the last five, six years, the president is the person who's had the highest number out there. we've mailed the case i think this secretary and previous secretary. have been saying we think we have a good case for the level of resource we've asked for. is the only budget where congress has actually funded what we asked for. we've had cuts ranging from $20 billion to $30 billion some years. so i think we've been making the case for higher resources and congress as a whole hasn't agreed to give them to us. the budget deal was not everything we wanted.
but we're kind of -- used to having cuts. we still review this as progress. i think we've done nothing more, nothing less than comply with the budget deal. i don't think we have played any games. tried to get rid of oco, that was the marching orders now. a lot has happened, both with the budget caps and threats. how is the department looking in the long term? it seems it had been done on a yearly basis every year to re-evaluate. are you taking more of a long
term approach these days at looking at it? is that making it kind of aden addendum to the base budget? >> the effort was to tighten up the rules, i think the predictability of oko and i would say we did a good job at that. to submit one or two supplements to building a good faith estimate of what the wars were going to cost. i think we've had as a result pretty decent predictability. there were some reasons why that worked well in irks where we had ongoing conflicts. it's a little harder when things are changing a lot to do it that way. in the last couple of years, there's been an effort, especially from o & b. an effort we worked with them on to try to find a way to get oco costs down and get everything
back into the base budget. we haven't made a lot of progress on that. i would say the budget deal went exactly the opposite direction from that. probably they'll take a fresh look at oco. the budget deal in my view gave us no guidance about what's going to happen the day after the budget deal expires. we're back to sequester level down here. department's proposed resource level we think we need is up here. no information about what people think of that. the oco arrangement in this budget deal was unprecedented. is that a precedent? it's hard for me to tell. or is this a one-time thing that will not be repeated. we have tried to work with o & b to put more predictability into
oco. hasn't really made a lot of progress. think the battlefield's fairly confused right now i'd have to say in terms of what's the future of is there going to be an oco budget in the future that looks like it does now. >> this is maybe your last appearance up here. on audit issues, that's the gift that keeps on giving up there. can you give a reality check on the eamericaning results? my understanding is they haven't been so great. what is the significant of sending an armored brigade, continued presence over to europe, versus an infantry brigade? what's the message, what's the equipment? what's the symbolism there in term also of the u.s. what we're sending over there? >> on the audit, we've had the big effort this year has been the three military. two of those have gotten their
reviews back from their auditors. i don't know if they've been all published or not. the third one is coming less than' month now for the navy. we are looking at disclaimers for the first two which was not a surprise. so i think on the face you could say it's not progress. my predecessor used to say you really have to get into the game. you have to call in the independent evaluators to really tell you what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong. so we have spent a lot of time over this administration as well as previous ones. what i would call practicing and preparing. which i think is all necessary first step. but at some point you only really learn by getting in
and -- very much like in the military realm i sort of think of it the same way. opposition forces are out there. then you really learn what you're doing right what you're doing wrong. i'm not discouraged, the fact we have disclaimers on these efforts. there's still a lot of hard work ahead of us. but i think that we still are moving in the right direction. there are problems. the thing that can be frustrating on the audit effort is if you can imagine sort of working on your car. you get working on one thing and then you find something else you have to fix. as you get into it, you can really find that there's a lot that -- a lot to get your arms around it. the more you open it up and work on it. but that's how we're going to get it done is just keep at it. we think that and knowledgeable outside observers think we have the right plan and we are making progress. i think we are doing the right things and moving in the right
direction. whether we're going to get there on schedule is the big open question. >> the european reassurance initiative for this budget, $3.4 billion, really two main areas. one is increased presence which will include the united states army armored brigade being on a rotational basis and essentially being as mr. mccord described heel to toe with no break in the availability. the second main part is the prepositioning of army equipment. including another army brigade in a prepositioned state in europe. the significance of an armored brigade is important because the units that are -- united states army units there as part of the joint force at this time we don't have armored brigade stationed in europe.
previously there were two heavy brigades removed from europe as joint force at this time we don't have armored brigades stationed in europe. previously there were two heavy brigades that were removed or withdrawn from europe as part of the army's drawdown. so, this is an important enhancement to the ability of the commanders, the combatant commanders and the joint forces commanders, army commanders, to conduct combined maneuvers and have the trained and ready units to conduct our tasks. >> yes, ma'am? >> thank you, sir. can you give us more details on the overall f-35 buy? have you changed the overall buy? what is the reduction -- the percentage reduction over the fitup? will this impact the unit cost in the near term or the long term, and how much is this
giving us in savings, and where exactly is the money going? >> okay, there's a number of questions in there, i think we'll have to get you some of that, you know, over the course or right afterward. i was going to say from the record but that's a reflex from my hill days. i don't think that's the proper term here. the one detail i have at my fingertips i will give you. within the 63 in the budget there's 43 "as" for the air force and 16 for the marine corps and 4 for the navy. the biggest reduction i would say compared to our previous plan and kind of how i was talking is compared to previous plan is definitely on the air force side. the unit cost increase is not projected to be noticeable. but significant, let me put it -- i wouldn't say noticeable or no one would know what it was. not significant. but, of course, you have to -- you have to sort of look at the totality of the program including the partners to really -- to really, you know, have your correct numbers there.
so, we will get with our folks in atl and the program office to get you the answers to all the questions, but in general the prediction from those -- from those areas is that it's not supposed to be a significant change in the unit cost, but definitely -- i mean, it's, you know, it's a lot of resources and we are trying to get it back up to where we wanted it to be across the fitup but it's a lot of money to -- and, you know, it's unclear that we'll be able to get this program back to the ramps that we had hoped for previously. >> time for two more questions. >> sir, can you give us a sense of what the third offset effort was funded at in fy-'17? it's bought a budget label in the s & t section for $35 billion. where did the rest of the money go live in fy-'17 and what level is it funded at?
>> we'll have to try to get you something on that. there is -- there is not a tag in our budget system that says this program is a third offset idea and this one is not or could not be, so it's a little bit of a -- a little less precise than saying what is connected to the submarine program or something like that. >> do you have a sense of the amount of new money that went toward it or is it existing programs that were relabeled as we'll include this under third offset? >> well, there are certainly some of both and, again, we'll get you the best numbers that we can on that. >> last question. sir? >> can you give a breakdown of the contribution that dod is giving to the new background check system? you touched on it briefly, but the resources, do you have a figure behind that and then the rationale behind that and how long that will stretch out into the future? >> well, the resource level in terms of, you know, in terms of the scope besides our budget is not enormous. i would say it's in the $100 million a year range.
and we also have at least for '17 we have the pre-existing cost of the identity protection services that we have to offer to all the people, again, 80% of the people affected by they were in the dod family either employees and contractors, past employees, so we have probably the biggest bill there. omb gave us the resources, by the way, for the projected cost of this increased i.t. cost that we're going to be doing. but also important to remember that we will be doing this as a service provider, so for those entities outside the defense department we would be doing this, you know, and expecting to be reimbursed, so we're not subsidizing other people in that sense. we will have a cost, some of which we got from omb through additional resources and some of which we would expect and we will require legislation which we'll be sending up to make this happen to be able to receive the moneys back from other agencies. >> folks, thank you very much. gentlemen, appreciate your time. that's all we have time for.
don't forget we have army in ten minutes. at 3:00 army will begin and followed by navy, air force and the missile defense agency. i want to see who's left at the end of the day. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, i'm pat seiber and i'm chief for the army media relations division. it's my honor today to introduce to you major general tom has horlander he's a director for the army budget and he'll spend the next several minutes providing you an overview of the army's fy-2017 budget. following the presentation we'll provide a time to ask questions. we're the first of the services to brief, we will be held to a
strict 40-minute session to include taking questions. if we don't get to your question today, we encourage you to participate in our budget roundtable tomorrow afternoon which i'll discuss at the end of today's presentation. please wait for me to call on you when we get to the "q" and "a" section so without further a ado, it's my pleasure to introduce your speaker. >> i see a few familiar faces so i'm happy to have the opportunity to present to you an overview of the united states army's 2017 budget request. i'll start by spending a few minutes providing you an overview of the army today. our fiscal posture and then spend some time providing a second level of detail about the army's request. i start by providing you a little context. first highlighting for you the increased velocity of instability throughout the world. and the magnitude of changes and the united states army's missions and operations in the
last several years to keep up with the growing instability in the global security environment. what you see before you is a representation of some of these changing missions. as you are aware, the president made the decision to extend the troop presence in afghanistan in order to continue to train the afghan security forces and support ongoing counterterrorism operations. the u.s. army has returned to iraq this past year to lead the operations inherent resolve mission to train, advise and assist the iraqis to conduct counterisil combat operations. to assure our nato allies and fully support the president's european reassurance initiative u.s. army europe has a large role in supporting european command operations, conducting regional engagement assurance missions and prepositioning equipment set to further deter russian aggression on the european continent. in the pacific, the u.s. army continues to engage asia, conducting its third year of
pacific pathways. the key regional engagement operations throughout the pacific theater, enhancing the invaluable partnership with our allies in the region. i would assert that what is most important to observe is that all of these operations were very much different or even nonexistent one or two years ago and require a greater level of u.s. army ground force involvement. as you can see from the map before you, a large portion of america's army continues to serve around the world in virtually every corner of the globe and in every combat and commander's area of operation. the current trend is the numbers are on the rise to support the combat and command missions. in the nation's africa command army soldiers are supporting joint task force operations in the horn of africa and in northern africa. the middle east remains a very active and dangerous area of the world. with army soldiers deployed or stationed in many of the 20
countries that make up the central command's area of responsibility. ongoing operations include the missions in afghanistan and iraq previously described. the multinational force observer mission in egypt. and "operation spartan shield" conducting regional engagements in much of southwest asia. as you can see a similar level of activity is occurring in the other combat and commander's areas of responsibility as well. what i ask you to take away from all of this is the unpredictability of the global security environment, the growing forward presence of u.s. army soldiers across the globe and the integral role that the u.s. army plays in protecting our national security interests at home and abroad. in all of the five evolving security challenges laid out by secretary carter earlier this month, those being the return of great power competition of the resurgent russia and a rising
china. the north korean threat to the u.s. and our allies. the countering an iranian malaligned influence that threatens u.s. friends and allies. and defeating terrorism. the u.s. army has a significant role in each of those. these points alone highlight the imperative of having an army that is ready not only for today's known operations but for the unknown operations of tomorrow that may develop. to ensure america's army is ready this requires consistent resourcing from year to year commensurate with the operational needs of the force. the readiness levels required for today's ground forces capable of generating the right level of combat power requires the total army to be manned, trained, equipped, its equipment and installation sustained at a high rate of readiness and our soldiers led by the best leaders we can develop. only then can the army address
any number of ongoing and emergent missions that may arise while simultaneously having an effective engagement capability with regionally aligned forces in an advise and assist capability. through this regionally aligned capability the united states army can shape the strategic security environment with the aim of forgoing any force-on-force kinetic operations that may develop. should efforts to prevent and shape the security environment not yield the intended results, of course, we want our nation's army to continue to be the most formidable land force in the world, capable of winning in today's very complex environment requiring capabilities that range from low intensity counterinsurgency to conducting major combat operations. it's valuable to start by looking at the army's budget over time and providing a little commentary that may inform your views of the army's current
funding request. as you can see from the chart the army's budget is both base and overseas contingency operation funding commonly refer to as oco. it's averaged 1% to 2 1/2% each year. in the base which is meant to man, train and equip the nation's army, we spent in the year 2010 at the highest point in this century $144 billion and as you can see we have been trending downward since that time. with today's base funding levels about 12% less than just 6 years ago. in the army has only been able to maintain that level of funding through the oco flexibility provided by our government. of course, this marked decrease in our base funding is partially attributable to the fact that we are a smaller army, but it's not only a reflection of the fiscal pressures on the defense budget
but also a reflection of the great stewardship of the leaders across the force. likewise, as large contingency operations have become smaller, the army's oco budget has been reduced to about 20% of what it was in 2010. and consistently over the last several years the department has been directed to leverage oco flexibility to help support our readiness requirements. owith the president's budget the following are some of the main highlights of our request. this budget has been formulated to provide the combat and commands with the best trained and ready land forces that we can generate. as i alluded to this requires a balance between army readiness in strength and modernization, a balance that takes years of consistent funding to achieve. before i leave this slide i want to point out two words -- prioritize, readiness. as we built this budget and
sought to strike the best possible balance within our top-line funding level we ensured that our absolute number one priority remained readiness. this remains our commitment to the nation, to send its sons and daughters as ready as they can possibly be for the mission they are set to do. the army's base budget request is $125.1 billion when oco flexibility is accounted for as part of the bipartisan budget act of 2015. this is less than what was provided in fy-'16 to budget -- i'm sorry, in fy-'16's budget to man and train and equip the army and as you note the reduced funding levels from the previous year in our military personnel and research development and acquisition accounts. this slide represents funding requirements for all three components, the regular army, the national guard and the army reserve and is a breakout in the
aggregate across the major defense appropriations. we will talk about each appropriation in more detail on subsequent slides. i will take this opportunity, however, to point out a couple of items. the army is people. whilst army's request accounts for approximately 44% of its top line, another 16% of it is used to pay for its civilian workforce bringing the army's total personnel cost to roughly 60% of the total budget. as the army's biggest cost driver, of course, we spend a lot of time with personnel and talent management and have continued to reduce the size of the civilian and contracted workforce on par with the drawdown of the military force. as you can see, the army's procurement and rdt & e accounts represent only 18% of the entire budget, much less than the historical norm of 20% to 22%. and lastly, you can see that the
only growth from fy-'16 to '17 is in our operations and maintenance accounts this is the funding primarily used to generate current readiness. resourcing constraints did not allow us to modernize our facilities and equipment at the same pace as we sought to minimize the risk to current readiness. this slide provides you a clear picture of military strength levels and how they continue to trend downward as land force requirements are on the rise. as you can see, the army is reducing its strength in both the regular army and the reserve components. these strength levels are generally aligned with force structure reductions as the army reorganizes its brigade combat team formations. all critical components of the army support to the joint force. a final point on this slide is that while these reductions are spread across the total army, the majority of them are coming out of the operating force as
opposed to the institutional army that has already been sized to keep the operational force as trained and ready as possible. the military personnel appropriations account for the largest portion of the army budget. our request funds a multicomponent army of just less than a million soldiers. this account covers pay, allowances, recruiting and retention incentives, permanent change of station moves and some training primarily in the reserve component. given our projected in-strength ramp, you can see that our request is almost a full $1 billion this year than -- as you were. almost a full $1 billion less than this year's funding levels. and accounts for some of the rate increases in our soldiers' basic pay, housing allowance and subsistence. i will transition now to the army's operation and maintenance appropriations. as i mentioned earlier this is
the one funding area where we are requesting growth from the current year's budget. starting with the regular army this 2017 budget request totals $35.4 billion and seeks to resource a more balanced readiness across the force instead of the tiered readiness of previous years where only approximately one-third of the army's brigade combat teams were ready for contingency force operations. consistent with both the current and future threat environments, the army's readiness goals are to have two-thirds of its regular army forces ready at any one time. this readiness also includes the necessary resourcing levels to sustain an installation support that is largely funded with the army's own accounts. this readiness is more than being prepared for current-day contingency operations but includes readiness for decisive action missions with the capability to conduct major combat operations. this fuller spectrum sustained
readiness model is reflected in the army's 19 combat training center rotations for which we are seeking funding. these rotations are focused on decisive action training for both the regular army and the reserve components. the army's request also provides for critical funding for regional engagement activities with our allies and strategic partners and training missions like pacific pathways that i mentioned previously. this request will cover the sustainment of the army's equipment and represents an increase in depot maintenance to help bring our equipment to a greater level of repair and by enhancing army preposition stocks that will improve expeditionary force capabilities. this request strongly supports the base operation support requirements on the army's 74 major installation funding it at 95%. unfortunately, we could only afford to fund about 67% of our facility sustainment requirements.
this is consistent funding -- this is a consistent funding level across the entire department of defense. and an area of risk for the army is it will exacerbate the amount of backlog maintenance that already exists is our facilities. the army's 2017 budget request supports $9.6 billion of o & m for the army national guard and the army reserve. for the army national guard its 2017 request is also nominally higher than the 2016 funding levels. it seeks to grow readiness to include decisive action training, sustain the force and fund critical base operation requirements. like the other services, its facility sustainment budget is also suppressed in this request. for the u.s. army reserve, there are $2.7 billion o & m budget request supports the 72 functional brigades, its three installations and over 800 reserve centers and the
professional education and specialized skills training for its 195,000 soldiers. this request is consistent with fy-'16 funding levels and also shares in the departmentwide risk of reduced funding levels for facility sustainment. having spent a few minutes discussing the army's near-term readiness and manning the force i would now like to transition to the army's modernization accounts. as mentioned earlier, this is an area where the army has had to take risk as funding levels have come down. since 2013, the army has made resource informed decisions in order to remain under the budget control act and bipartisan budget act caps by terminating programs, extending production schedules for most programs, and delaying developmental efforts on several high-dollar systems like the ground combat vehicle, the armed aerial scout and full on-the-move tactical networks.
the research development and acquisition budget request of $22.6 billion is a decrease of $1.4 billion from the 2016 enacted levels. this 5.8% decrease is largely attributed to the bipartisan budget act of 2015 as the army had to make some difficult choices between current and future readiness. we assess that this risk will continue until we achieve a greater balance between readiness, in strength and modernization early into the next decade. the fy-'17 budget request includes a dozen modest new starts and no program terminations. the army's request continues to support aviation modernization, offsetting some of the inherent risks associated with the army's aviation restructuring initiative, funds incremental capability improvements to our current ground combat vehicle fleets and begins efforts to increase lethality for brigade
combat teams. the fy-'17 budget requests science and technology continues at a relatively funding level, to drive down future risk and find new capabilities and game-changing potential and increase efficiencies and affordability to equip the force of 2025. the funding table on this chart shows the inconsistent level of rda funding from year to year since fiscal year '13 and represents an average funding level that is on the average 18% of the army's total budget. this reduced investment in army future readiness is where the army has assumed risk to preserve current-day readiness. additionally the chart represents the army's 11 largest equipment portfolios and the proportional distribution of funding for each. what i would ask you to take away from this is that the army requires a very broad, encompassing set of modernization efforts to be capable of being successful at any number of diverse missions in support of the combatant
commanders. our focus remains on the soldier and the squad. providing aviation in combat vehicles that provide mobility, protection and firepower. to mission command that enables situational awareness and networking. to the soldier portfolio that provides the individual soldier with lethality, survivability, and increased visibility dominance. breaking down the army's modernization portfolio i start with procurement and then follow with research development, testing and evaluation. for the procurement appropriation our fy-'17 request of $15.1 billion is $1.3 billion decrease from the fy-'16 enacted levels. the largest portion of our procurement program remains aviation. the fy-'17 request continues an investment plan consistent with the army's aviation restructuring initiative. however, with the recent
publication of the commission report, the army is studying the recommendations and assessing the impact to its fy-'17 funding program. the army also continues to maximize buying power by requesting approvals of multi-year contracts for the blackhawk "m" model and the apache "e" model. these multi-year contracts will produce substantial savings and facilitate industrial-based stability for these critical programs. additionally the chinook fleet conversion will be completed in fy-'18. finally the fy-'17 includes critical investments in aircraft survivability components. in the mission command portfolio supporting network modernization the army is committed to developing and fieldi in ing an advanced tactical network as part of an modernized army network that provides efficiency while providing robust voice,
data communications from the theater to the tactical edge. the network supports the operating force, interfaces with the generating force, and provides reliable cybersecurity and connectivity with our joint force partners. in our combat vehicle portfolio the army continues to provide incremental improvements to the mobility, protection and lethality of its battle tested and proven combat vehicle fleets. for the m-1 abrams tank, the fy-'17 request supports change proposal 1alpha, next evolution packages and the alpha 3 set version three. for the bradley fighting vehicle, our request includes funding for track and suspension, power train, and electrical system upgrades to host technology and network insertions. the army's request supports fielding the 3rd striker double "v" hold brigade set, electrical upgrades and converting the flat-bottom hull to a double-v
hull as part of the 4th double-v hull brigade set. it requests need modifications and network upgrades. the new request procures 36 self-propelled howitzers and 36 ammunition carriers. the full-rate production decision is anticipated in january of 2017. the joint light tactical vehicle or jltv, remains the centerpiece of the army's tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy replacing one-third of the light wheeled vehicle fleet by 2014. the fy-'17 request buys just over 800 vehicles compared to fy-'16 where we purchased less than 700 of these vehicles. the other portion of our modernization program is research, development, testing and evaluation or rdt & e. the army's $7.5 billion request
for this funding is about the same amount as the 2016 enacted budget. of this amount we have preserved $2.2 billion for our science and technology or s & t efforts. this includes funding to refine concepts, requirements, and key technologies for the army's future ground combat vehicle. our s & t request includes funding to demonstrate feasibility for developing an affordable medium-lift aircraft with greatly enhanced speed and distance capabilities and includes the high energy laser technology focused on defeating any number of airplane born threats ranging from mortars and uavs to cruise missiles. in other major rdt & e categories we are requesting funding for several key programs for the abrams, bradley and striker programs, funding our engineer change proposals will address power deficiencies,
improve protection and provide the ability to accept future network and enabling space, weight and power cooling improvements. the army's integrated air and defense missile -- missile defense program will provide advanced capabilities to the army by allowing transformation to a network-centric system of systems capability that integrates sensor and weapons with battle command system engagement operation centers. the armored multi-purpose vehicle will replace the vietnam-era m-13 family of vehicles with the army combat vehicles. the vehicles will undergo development and testing. we remain committed to the improved turbine engine for our blackhawk and apache fleets. our goal is to replace the 1970-era engines to meet increased operational requirements flying at 6,000
feet, altitude at 95 degrees. to protect the air crews and the aviation fleet we are requesting almost $100 million in the common infrared countermeasure system or cirm to provide protection in order to defeat an infrared missile threat. we also requesting funding for assured positioning, navigating and timing technologies that enable mission command and network operations in conditions that impede or deny access to global positioning systems. to address the growing cyberthreats, we are requesting almost $75 million for army cyberefforts to advance and deploy cyberspace and electromagnetic capabilities. this will assure the army system networks and exploit cybervulnerabilities and adversarial systems and networks. other small portions of our rdt & e request include long
range precision fires that will provide rocket and artillery extended range capabilities and two new starts for the army infantry. a ground mobile vehicle for a nine-man infantry squad and a mobile protected firepower that enhances direct fire capabilities of infantry brigade combat teams. wrapping up, the modernization portion of this briefing and to give you an idea of the quantity of items we are purchasing this chart lists the army's base funded procurement programs valued greater than $200 million each. in descending order many of which i've spoken about throughout this briefing. as i stated previously one of the keys to readiness is installation readiness. and investing in the army's infrastructure. i discussed previously during the o & e portion of this briefing the reduced funding levels to sustain the army's existing infrastructure.
our request for milcon is reduced as well. as you can see fy-'17 it's the smallest budget in recent years and the army will fund only 29 milcon construction projects totaling $805 million. in the army family account which totals $527 million, there are some growth primarily to support two new construction projects -- new family housing construction projects in korea totaling $200 million. the army's fy-'17 brac funding supports environmental cleanup, restoration and conveyance of excess properties at previous brac locations. in the budget are several requirements managed and funding separately outside of the main appropriations. this request includes $71 million for the arlington national cemetery to fund day-to-day operations and 29 restoration and modernization
projects. the army's also requesting $551 million for the congressionally m mandated chemical demilitarization program. the funding supports continued operations at pueblo, colorado, and bluegrass, kentucky, plant and the chemical stockpiled emergency preparedness project for both sites and the surrounding communities. the army has been managing large, overseas contingency fund budgets since 2001. as illustrated earlier in this briefing, this has been an account that has ebbed and flowed as operations have expanded and contracted over time. the army's 2017 oco budget request remains small when compared to past years. this year's multicomponent request totals $25 billion when including the funding and pass-through accounts and the oco flexibility for base readiness requirements provided by the bba. the 2017 oco requests supports
"operation freedom sentinel" in kuwait and qatar, "operation inherent resolve" in iraq and the "european assurance" initiative in europe. it includes 3 $.4 billion for the afghan security force fund. the request primarily supports mobilized reserve component soldiers and the recent decision by the president to extend in-strength levels in afghanistan. the operations and maintenance portion represents about two-thirds of the army's oco request and supports theater operations and transportation and force protection, support contracts, mobilization requirements and reset of equipment returning from theater. and a smaller portion of this request in our procurement accounts is for replacement of battle losses, ammunition consumption in theater, and
prepositioned stocks in europe. one should note in most areas of this program the request is comparable to the fy-'16 funding levels with the leveraging of oco flexibility to fund approximately $2 billion of base requirements as provided by the bba '15 and the growth in the european reassurance initiative funding request illustrated on the next slide. the european assurance initiative or eri is a means to assure our nato allies and constitutes much of the growth of the army's oco request. of the total request, it accounts for over $2.8 billion to support the rotation of an armored brigade combat team and its enablers. currently in europe conducting exercises with our nato allies and partners. and a full armored brigade
combat team static set for army prepositioned stocks. as we prepare this request, we were driven to make some difficult choices as fiscal pressures represented in the bipartisan budget act of 2015 funding levels drove the army to reduce funding in some critical areas. to help mitigate these fiscal pressures the army continued to become more efficient and better posture to support the combatant commanders while funding levels trend down. we have reduced force structure and military instrength as well as civilian personnel and the amount of funding we spend on contract support. modernization has been lean and the investment in facilities has been reduced. i wish to conclude the presentation by emphasizing several key challenges that face america's army and need to be the backdrop for any current and future budgetary discussions. in just the past several years we have seen a number of emergent operations that
required american soldiers to deploy and operate for extended period of time for contingency operations. some of these were not even anticipated a year earlier. with a resurgent russia, a rising china, malaligned iranian influence, a threatening north korea and continued counterterrorism operations, the world's security environment is changing so fast that the army needs predictable funding across its entire portfolio year after year to keep pace with these changes to protect both current and future threats to america's national security interests. i can't overemphasize that in order to have a formidable ground force capable of generating the requisite combat power to support our combatant commanders both today and tomorrow the army must achieve a better balance between instrength and modernization, each inextricably linked to one another. reducing funding on our
modernization and equipping accounts put the army's technological overmatch advantage at risk. similarly reduced funding in the army's installation and infrastructure accounts further impact future readiness as their disrepair will require larger investments in the future. marginalizing one component of readiness to benefit the other may net a near-term solution but may create un -- in the outyears. the u.s. army needs to retain force structure and instrength readiness and cutting edge equipment all critical components to our national security. this budget request supports readiness as the army's number one priority. ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the formal portion of my brief. >> we have seven minutes for "q" and "a." and let's do one follow-up to get to as many questions as possible. >> hi, jen johnson. >> good to see you. >> i wanted to dive further into the eri, oco funds.
the first question is will we see more than 34,000 presence in the european area of operations? as a result of this. will that stay the same? and also if you could sort of let us know what will be funded within some of these things like building partner capacity, what are you going to be doing with that $50 million? how many more training exercises are you adding? is there anything else in prepositioned stock besides that abct? just any more details you can provide would be great. >> sure. that's a loaded question. a lot of information there. so, the -- one of the things you're going to see is a greater troop presence because what we're going to do is some heel-to-toe rotations where there's no gaps or seams between when one unit rotates in and departs and another one follows behind it. so, there will be a greater troop presence there. there's more than just an abct, there's some enables in the set that you were referring to.
so, there are a -- many more exercises today than there were even a year ago, so there's some good activity partnering with our allies. i know they're really excited and appreciative of this. so, we do have a very detailed eri briefing that we can provide you some more details on that, but in general terms i think that's some of what you were asking for. yes, sir? >> yes, sir, i'm here from breakingdefense.com. i wonder if you'll shed a little light on the aircraft procurement accounts. you cut a 1.3 billion cut in total army procurement. but you got a $2.3 billion cut in aviation. the numbers of chinooks go from 39 to 22. blackhawks from 107 to 36. but your document says you prioritized modernization of
those aircraft. how much would they have been cut if they weren't a priority? and why is aviation bearing so much of the burden? >> so, we did try to -- within what we could afford to do in our modernization accounts, we tried to keep those -- we kept them on the industrial base and maintaining some stability there and what our operational requirements were. and obviously had to balance that against the entire portfolio. so, -- and we also had a great advantage with some of these multiyear contracts for the apache and the blackhawk. so, as we tried to balance across the entire rda account, all the procurement, when we say we prioritized aviation, it was prioritized within the account. so, i would say that, you know, by comparison to everything else within our portfolio, aviation
seemed to -- we were able to keep it at a level commensurate with what we could be comfortable with. >> but it's a 2.3 billion cut in aviation and a total cut of procurement of $1.3 billion. so, it seems like aviation's actually bearing the entire burden. >> so, i would tell you, you know, we recognize that there were some reductions to the aviation portfolio. that's a big portfolio and we had to make up some ground in terms of total reductions as we built this budget. but i don't think it was any more or less reduced than some of our other components of the procurement or the rda portfolio. so, i think, you know, we tried to strike that balance as best as we could. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you about the
commission of the -- on the future of the army. they pointed out that the army is -- has some shortfalls in armor, in missile defense, air defense, and they suggested maybe some trade-offs like reducing infantry brigades to beef up armor. have you guys factored that into the budget? is that something that you're considering at all? >> so, that's a great question. right now, today, the army's 2017 budget does not account for any recommendations from the national commission on the future of the army. what we are doing is we have -- we're studying the recommendations pretty extensively. all three components together as a unified team. and we're looking at the recommendations and based upon some decisions about the recommendations, then we will determine how we're going to implement those recommendations. so, there is potential for something in the '17 budget to change but right now we're still
studying the recommendations. >> this will be the last question. you, sir. >> thank you, sebastian springer from "inside defense." i wonder if you could go through the upticks in the missiles portfolio. this is not all war related. from what it looks like. is there a specific reason why you're -- >> so, i would tell you, let me get back to you. are you going to come to the roundtable tomorrow? let us give you a really good answer for that tomorrow. >> follow-up there's talk over converting a striker brigade into an infantry brigade combat team? >> there is. that's part of the fy-'17 conversion program. >> the rationale behind that? >> one, operational capabilities that we're looking at and, two, just some -- just some other factors. >> that was a short one. so i'll give you one more. yes, sir. >> john harper from "national
defense" magazine. is there anything in there having to do with the light armored vehicle or is that cut due to the budget constraints? >> let me ask someone from my staff. >> no, sir. >> nothing right now. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming today. please note as we stated earlier, public affairs is going to host a budget meeting roundtable tomorrow, wednesday, in the aqua conference room at 1430 and that's in one echo 462 and we'll be there to answer additional questions and address what may not have been hit today. if you have any questions about it, please see my staff or come to see me and we'll give you the contact information. thank you very much. well, good afternoon, everyone.
i'm major general joe martyr, air force director budget and this my deputy ms. karen gleason and it's our pleasure to brief you on the air force's 2017 budget request. next slide. this is what we'll cover today. we'll start with the strategic framework we use to balance capability and capacity and readiness across the full spectrum of operations. we'll talk about the great work our airmen are doing to support the joint force. we'll discuss the impacts of operating with reduced funding levels and the importance of adequate, predictable budgets so we can resource the air force we need now and in the future. then we'll provide highlights of fy-'17 budget to include our request for over sea contingency operations or oco funding. we'll start with the strategic framework. next slide. every year we use a very deliberate process to make every dollar count. because all five core missions listed on this slide are all
critical to the joint force in our nation. our challenge in an uncertain, resource-constrained budget environment is to maintain balance across the five core missions, ensuring we are ready today but also ready 20 years from now. what we've learned in the last few years the world doesn't take a break and the demand for air force capabilities continues to grow. so, every year we make the necessary budget adjustments and every year we develop a set of guiding principles to focus limited resources. this year's guiding principles are listed on the slide for your review. they are grounded by the air force's commitment to our joint partners and will be accomplished across the total force active, guard, and reserve. it's also our commitment to our airmen who continue to do amazing things in very tough conditions. it's our responsibility to give them the best training and the best equipment so they can win
decisively now and in the future. in fy-'17 we met most of those objectives but still had to make tough choices to live within the bipartisan budget act limits. next slide. make no mistake about it, we are still the world's greatest air force, because of our people. our airmen take great pride and their service and it's remarkable what they accomplish every day. together with our joint and coalition partners airmen provide around-the-clock global vigilance, global reach, and global power in defense of our nation and our allies. in fact, the joint force depends on air force capabilities and requires air power at the beginning, the middle, and at the end of every operation. in 2015, our airmen produced amazing results and some of those highlights are listed on the slide. which reflect a total force effort, active duty, guard and reserve airmen, military and
civilian. they're doing great things for our nation in very tough conditions and the world continues to change. if you'll look on the chart, the red circles represent where we thought we would be in 2012, and the blue circles represent today's reality. in 2012 we thought we would have an opportunity to take a knee, to rest, train, and reconstitute our forces. however, the realities in the middle east and europe have required a persistence presence by our airmen. next slide. this year as we commemorate the 25th anniversary of "operation desert storm" it's important to know that 25 years of continuous combat operations have taken a toll on our airmen, their readiness, and the equipment they operate. the reference to "desert storm" is important because that's the air force most people know. the reality is we are not the same air force as we were back
then. 25 years ago we had 134 combat coded fighter squadrons. today we have 55. back then, we had 946,000 airmen, military and civilians, while today we have a total force of approximately 664,000. then we had approximately 8,600 aircraft. today we have approximately 5,500. right now the average age of our aircraft is over 27 years. in fact, 21 fleets qualify for antique license plates in the state of virginia and right now our readiness is near all-time lows. all of this at a time when the world remains busy and the demand for air force capabilities continues to grow. since august, 2014, the air force continues to lead the response against isil and isis. and airmen are still deploying to afghanistan. we're facing a resurgent russia,
a rising china, and north korea remains very unpredictable. the technology and capability advances the united states had 25 years ago are closing fast. space and cyber domains are becoming more congested and contested. advanced air defenses and radars are becoming more common, and competitors continue to invest in new technology in their own fifth generation aircraft. the bottom line? the capability gap is shrinking and we must continue our effort to reverse that. next slide. this chart illustrates the impact of living with reduced funding and why predictable budgets are so important as we look to the future. for example, in fy-'12 we estimated 2017 requirements to be $137 billion. this year's budget request is $17 billion less than that
planning number and at vca levels it's $23 billion less. we all remember those funding gaps that you see are highlighted in red on the chart. and what it represents is lost capacity, lost capability, and reduced readiness to support the joint force. so, we all remember when sequestration hit in fy-'13 it imposed large and immediate cuts which required drastic action to make it to the end of the fiscal year. we stood down flying units. we deferred aircraft maintenance and critical infrastructure and had to furlough our civilians for six days. after starting fy-'14 and a government shutdown and planning for a second year of sequestration we are grateful for the modest short-term relief that congress provided for fiscal years '14 and '15. it was a good start. it allowed us to resource critical readiness components and protected our top modernization priorities the
kc-46, f-35 and lrsb, but it wasn't enough. we still had to make tough choices. choices that were necessary to save the billions needed to live within the budget limits. to pay the bill, we attempted to divest force structure. we reduced military instrength, accelerated management headquarters reductions and continued to take risk in munitions base support facilities and much-needed military construction and if you remember in fy-'15 we sacrificed near-term readiness for future modernization. however, soon after we submitted our fy-'15 budget, the world changed and the demand for air force capabilities increased. so, in our fy-'16 request we made the necessary ajudgmedjust for the air force we needed and it was our best attempt to balance near-term readiness with future modernization. last year we set our fy-'16
budget starts the recovery for the air force we need. thanks to this year's bipartisan budget act, we avoided sequestration and the devastating impacts for two more years. again, we are grateful for the passage of this year's bipartisan budget act. it allows us to fund readiness components at executable levels. we're able to retain legacy force structure and triple the number of munitions compared to fy-'15. both very important to ensure we have the right level of capacity to support current operations and growing demand. we preserve our top modernizatimodern ization priorities and further investments in nuclear, space and cyber. most important, we stop the downsizing and started right-sizing the total force instrength to cover key shortfalls to include cyber, nuclear, maintenance manpower and the rpa community. next slide. so, again, our fy-'16 budget
starts the recovery for the air force we need. our fy-'17 budget request is consistent with that plan and builds on those efforts. again, you can see in the blue box that bipartisan budget act levels we can sustain force structure to support current ops and combatant commander needs. we'll continue to fund flying hours and weapons system sustainment to near capacity. we'll continue our investments in ranges, simulators, advanced weapons schools and assure combat exercises like red flag and green flag remain strong. we'll be able to fund munitions to capacity to support current ops and we'll start to rebuild inventories. we kept two of our three modernization programs on track the kc-46 and the long range strike. we had to live within bba limits in 2017. we remained critted to strengthening our nuclear
enterprise and we'll continue to advance investments in space and cyber. and we'll improve the rpa enterprise with military bonuses and funding 60 isr combat lines. we'll continue our efforts to build the new combat rescue helicopter and we'll fund air force one recapitalization. most important, we keep our commitment to our airmen. we stop the downsizing in fy-'16 and starting restoring military instrength in critical mission sets. those missions will continue in fy-'17. this budget also includes a 1.6% pay raise for both military and civilians. bottom line, the fy-'17 budget continues the recovery and gives us a larger and better equipped force. however, we still had to make choices to live within bba limits and we worry because sequestration remains the law for fy-'18 and out. now, i'd like to draw your attention to the red -- to the
red box. it reflects the tough choices we had to make at bba limits. in fy-'17 to live within bba limits we fell short in three areas. modernization, infrastructure, and people. without additional funding, we'll defer five at 35s, some fourth generation aircraft modifications and delay the completion of the c-138 recapitalization effort. we'll continue to take risk in infrastructure, an action that we've repeated since fy-'13 sequestration. as a result our infrastructure will continue to suffer impacting both readiness and quality of life. as well as driving high replacement costs in the future. our i.t. infrastructure also needs additional funding to ensure we keep pace with the new, more complex programs that reside on its backbone. as i mentioned, we'll restore active duty instrength to
317,000. however, current demands indicate more growth is necessary, so we will fill capability gaps to support combatant commanders. of course, as we look ahead to fy-'18, the budget control act and sequestration remains the law. if sequestration returns in fy-'18 we'll be faced with another multibillion shortfall to solve in one year and unable tohe capabilities in the future. to pay the bill, we'll have to consider all options, reduce force structure and delay modernization and shortchange readiness acts and delaying investment in nuclear, spice, isr and cyber. and infrastructure would continue to suffer and we could not avoid impacts to our people. given current demanding and changing geopolitical positions we must continue the recovery to provide our airmen the training
and equipment they need to win decisively. now, let's look at the details of our fy-'17 budget. so, this is a breakout of our fy-'17 budget. you'll see -- you'll see the bar on the left represents our total air force budget for fy-'17. to include active duty, guard and reserve components. the top block is what we refer to as non-blue which is the portion of the air force budget not directly under our control but managed by other departments or agencies. the remainder of the budget or the air force blue baseline budget is the focus of today's brief. in brackets you'll see the air force blue budget for fy-'17 is approximately $120.4 billion which is roughly 23% of dod's 2017 budget. of the 1 -- of the $120.4 billion approximately $76 billion, or 63%, supports
day-to-day operations. military and civilian pay make up 54% of day-to-day operating costs. flying hours, system sustainment and missions executed in the major commands total 38%. this represents the remaining 8%. the top procurement and largest programs. these programs total approximately $26 billion or about 60 percent per of investment. the largest portion is modernization. thoot the impacts in these areas. now we will look at each appropriation starting with the military personnel.
the budget is 24% of the total request and is supports 492,000. as stated in fy 16, we will grow the force to address key capability gaps in the nuclear enterprise, cyber and maintenance careers. they continue funding for the total air force and continue as i mentioned. current demands indicated the growth is necessary. we will continue to assess the capability gaps and where they exist will grow against them to meet that demand. to support the demand, we will invest in the training pipeline by adding 100 instructors. this will support 26,000, an increase of 2100 new air men over those levels.
the air force act are to bring in 4800 officers. they will begin the implementation for the community. this budget offers retention and sentence for a variety of career fields. through these actions, we can preserve the legacy force and increase the number of sensor operators. we will also continue our efforts to strengthen the nuclear enterprise and cyber operations: the request includes a pay raise and we will continue to fund programs in the operation and maintenance could shown on the next slide.
it supports the full spukt rum as well as people. the readiness is going to executable levels. it ensures advanced weapons and combat exercises like red and green flag are funded in the long-term effort to restore full spectrum readiness. we will fund the readiness that will need permanent relief and increase the manpower and more time for peace time training. we expect full spectrum readiness in eight to ten years. this supports 60 combat laws while sustaining. it includes funding to maintain 26 cyber mission teams and
supporting our effort to grow to 39. we will maintain capacity to support by retaining and funding in the weapons. to allow more to transition to the force, we will stop contract and maintenance. this also takes care of our people by expanding the response program and providing child care and youth programs, funding tuition assistance as well as readiness centers. we also requested a pay raise of 1.6% for the army. while the funds were mentioned on a previous slide, we will take notice and both of those
need funding. now we will discuss the funding. we focused on bet downs and retirements and increasing the investment and the projects. for the active air force this includes the kc 46, f 35 and combat rescue helicopter. new construction includes two dorm projects and a fitness center. we also invest $41 million for the enterprise. for the air force reserve, our request is funding and the kc 46 and the c 17. the enter the guard has f 22 as well as the air force. they continue to fund new construction firefighter the combat and the support critical to the requirements.
as we mentioned, we have deferred a number of projects. they can execute $464 million. next slide. research and development tests and evaluation is where big ideas take the leap from a big idea to the technology that we use every day. just imagine the world without gps. as they close the gap, they can't afford to let them catch up. because of this, we increase funding by $1.6 billion of what they were requesting. this represents a two-year increase. our approach remains consistent. they focus on the nuclear and
space enterprise. the funding for ground base defense to include the guidance propulsion and security and command and control applicati s applications. this request funds upgrades for our b 2 bomber. we will provide funding for the development and systems to reduce the reliance on foreign-made rockets. we will continue to invest in future capabilities and new technology. with funding for the adaptive engine and the recap program. we remain focused on the program. as well as the rescue helicopter and the replacement for air force one. next slide. the f117 budget reserves the modernization programs and sustains the space and the
strategy and invests in the nuclear enterprise and funds munitions to support ongoing operations. in this budget we had to sacrifice the current readiness. as a result we were forced to delay five f 35s. some for modifications and delay completion and the recapitalization effort. delay in modernization has been a trend that allows our competitors to close the capability gap. for example, since fy 12, we deferred 75 f 35s. this equates to four squadrons and the capacity and capabilities needed for high end threats. this budget does procure 43 of the 48 and 15 kc 46s and 11 c 130 js by continuedests for our and some of our aircraft.
this request includes modernization for the f 22 and radar upgrades for the f 16. as spags is more contested and congest congested, they remain committed to advancing the capabilities to operating in the environment. they will block by so the satellites this supports the access to space with funding for five services, three of which will be launch opportunities. we remain challenged and that's what we find for capacities. finally we enhanced communications and the control assets listed on the chart. the next slide shows procurement.
>> these are the quantities that show that. they remain fairly constant and based on current demand of replacing or replenishing the inventory, we increased by 10,000 and the small diameter. next we will discuss the submission. the budget request continues to support the commanders and the most urgent requirements. it reflects the requirements for operations in afghanistan, iraq and fighting of i till and isis. the request also supports the allies through the european reassurance initiative. this year's request is $12.3 billion and supports theests on the slide by funding flying hours and weapons sustainment and eight combat lines and the
day to day operating expenses for six enduring locations. in addition, the funding is requested to replace almost 24,000 preferred mu anythings totalling $716 million. lastly it funds no requests and supports the initiative by investing infrastructure in europe such as aircraft storage and munition storage. this also supports the air men for proper pay and allowances and provides the best equipment possible to win today's fight. next slide. as we wrap up today's briefing, here the points i want to leave you with. this is based on strategy that
balances capability and capacity and readiness across the operations. air force priorities as reflected remain the same. taking care of people and striking a balance between readiness and modernization and making every dollar count. we are grateful for the temporary budget relief provided by the budget act that allows them to store and fund all readiness components and continue the top three modernization programs. at reduced rates for the 35. it also allows us to sustain capacity to meet commanders's requirements. it resources in the space. even the budget relief and caps return. this is when they were one of the strongest and oldest. we learned from the lessons that
it's time to apply the lessons and repeal the budget control and give america the air force it deserves. next slide. this is where you can find more information and the details about our budget. thank you for your time. we will take your questions. >> of the f-22 workers entailed, we will seeing this happen with the f 35. what is the flexibility and how many aircraft can be cut before the air force starts to get worried about readiness and capability? >> well, the f 35 program is 1763. this just delays that ramp to get into 1763.
as we mentioned earlier, any time you delay that capability, we talked about the delay that represented the capability. >> with the affordability, is it something they need to place more emphasis on when choosing a 6th generation fighter? >> we are always looking on how to keep the costs low. that's a big priority making every dollar count. we have several throughout the acquisition process to make sure we keep costs reasonable. >> your document alludes to an affordable strategy. what does that plan include? for j stars, the programs had some struggles and we extended that phase of the program to lower overall risk and roughly a
year. we are going to get it back on track. we will have to tend to that. they are going to modify it down to the program. >> i'm sorry. would that plan have an unmanned platform at all? >> i don't know. >> a quick question. how much did it cost to retain a 10 to 20? this is the five-year plan for the long range bomber. the critics are going to say the program is slipping. can you explain to the twitter world? >> i will take that while he is looking it up. >> the program content has not
changed. all that happened is we had a competition. we down-select and we have a winner and that winnie's business strategy and technology strategy is purely an update to a cost estimate. the content is the same. . >> yes. >> this looks like the program that is seeing that increase and then more than 400 million over that. what is behind that? is that related to the new service as well?
>> the service cost estimate with the delay, our budget is using the cost position. it's 24 months and i a mended the risk. the biggest change is we want to get it out there for the gps satellite constellation. the air forces looking at contingency operations that if we have to offer him off of that, we can. they will run with the current control system until they can be fielded. >> so there is a new service cost estimate now? >> the budget is based on the new service cost. i'm sorry, wrong number. let me ask another question and i will look it up. >> yes, ma'am? >> i wanted to ask about your
observation and the challenges with readiness. they said it would take to ten years to get to readiness. what exactly is full readiness and why does it take so long? >> when you talk full spectrum, that's the ability to provide training so that we are ready for the full spectrum of operations. >> while we continue to fund the readiness components, we will have the maintenance manpower and the time to try and visit that. is that the time it takes for readiness? >> so again, we continue to assess our ability to train and
provide that full spectrum training. every year we assess how long it would take, but again we will have to reduce our tempo to get to that full spectrum training. >> can i have your number on gps? the program is 393 million and 17 over the flight up. it's $1.1 billion. i should probably stand up. >> i just need to get back on to the members for the f 35. how many exactly are you sacrificing? i heard that number is 45 and can you say or maybe draw up the ramp for us what it does to the ramp in terms of -- whether you had any kind of thought about how quickly you will be able to
get back to the ramp. >> so on the f 35 program, we delayed the ramp to 1763 with the depth. we referred 45 aircraft which is about $4.5 billion. >> what about when you resume the ramp? >> it slowed the ramp. we actually go back to -- hold on a minute. >> can somebody help me? >> can we get a chair? >> it's okay. you're all right. that's what the f 35 will do to
you. sit down. sit down. >> of course now i have to do without my glasses that god only knows i won't be able to read. are you okay? >> he told me he was going to -- just have a seat. he kept threatening to pull a hammy. i didn't think he meant it. f 35. we have slowed it and right now we are programmed to 21 again. so fy 17 is 43, fy 18 is 44. ny 19 and 20 are 48 and 21 is 60. you asked about cost on f 35. that program as you know has three services. the customers and papers. right now we don't expect the reduction in air force quantities to affect the cost.
>> given the delays in the f 35, what does it mean for the fleets? i don't see that for the wiring. can you explain that? >> we have f 16 in our budget. >> it's the next one. they were talking about it earlier and the risks with the bba to our modernization. you are right. we would have to bolster our fourth jen aircraft. we have dollars for both f 16 and f 15 service life extensions and modernization programs. this is an area we had to take a risk in. we don't have robust programs.
that's a reduced amount of dollars. we have dollars in there. >> do you get the structural upgrades or the radar? >> with the f 15, we put structural dollars in there. we also have the program as well. that will make it viable in those environments against the higher class adversary. for the f 16, perhaps you have heard, we do have asa radars in two. at the first is 24 f 16s for the national capital region in a homeland defense scenario. and there is another traunch of asa radars of 52 radars. that's to put more of those radars. 52 throughout the fleet. that's over the course of the
fight. the first will get in. for the homeland defense purpose, we will have three different sites with eight aircraft each for a total of 24 aircraft. >> we have time for last question. >> that's 24 separate and a separate traunch. >> air force magazine. you talked about building up the rpa force and cyber. are all of those going to be new members of the air force or are you going to build that up and maybe make some of the other enterprises a little bit smaller and people moving around a lot? just how are you going to do that? >> this is an actual question we had to ask yourself as we built the budget.
how will we get enough people to do all the things that we are being asked to do. excellent question. we asked it of ourselves. for the most part we recognized, we need many more air men than we currently have. we went in with a larger number recognizing there validated requirements that we have for a larger air force than we are asking for. as the general martin alluded to, they are producing at the max executable rate. even though we wanted it, we can only get so many through the training pipelines. we put more instructors at these places at the basic military training and put more instructors at the units and they can then get more students through the classes and open the pipelines so we can get the operators out to the specific locations where they would conduct that operation.
for 17, it's more air men and in the case of rpas in cyber, with the aircraft maintenance over the course of the fight up, as we drawdown aircraft, we will take those and move them on to the next f 35. we are repurposing. >> that's all our time. please e-mail me and i will take any follow-up questions. >> i won't brief the f 35 anymore. i'm fine. he better never threaten me again.
three or four more minutes and we will have the d mirl up here. we are waiting for folks to take a look at him. he is sitting down. >> thanks for sticking through this today. the department of the navy this morning submitted an fy 17 in a budget request to $165 billion. i will provide an overview of the content of that request. we will start with the national level mission guidance that defines the missions that the marine corps are going to execute and the operational context of how that has been executed over the course of a decade and a half.
we will talk about the nature of the operational context and driving changes in the character of the environment and the nature of the competitors themselves. these operation elements are foundational to many of the investments found in the budget request ranging from the generation of combat readiness to the modernization of capabilities. we will highlight the fiscal context that bounds the options and capabilities and the capacity and readiness and address the specifics. we will talk about the focused investments and the innovation and reform elements that resource a global force. let's start with the guidance. this spans the national security defense and military strategies through the 2014 defense review and the secretary of the navy with the platforms, power, and partnerships and the newly released maritime superiority from richardson.
neller's update on advanced guidance. this directs the marine that directs shown here ranging from providing an effective deterrent and terrorism in order to protect the homeland to the presence across the globe to build security globally and power and winning decisively when called upon. this reflects the secretary of the navies and the marine course implementation of this mission decidance. today's execution of that guidance is the result of resources providing and made in prior years to resource today's marine corps. in meeting the requirements that execute the mission sed, they provide the forces as shown. these include 36,000 sailors and 5,000 marines deployed on 44 ships. three carrier strike groups. there is an additional 33,000
sailers including 41,000 in the east asia and specific. these are among the forces that provided immediate response options and assures allies including the deployments of five strike groups to combat the commanders around the globe. the sea operations and challenging excessive sovereignty claims with freedom of navigation and the strike groups and the combat operations with the french carrier in operations in the fight against isil. overall today, they continued to remain engaged at high tempo in harm's way provide allies in the adversaries. over the course of a decade and a half, concurrent with funding, 13 through 16 that provided $30 billion less stressed the force. this chart shows annual
deployments in blue and in green. the chart shows even as the navy has progressed, they progress into the early 90s and deployed about a quarter each year to a 30 in recent years. it continued to be oversubscribed and the demand for naval forces. the employment summaries for calendar years 13 and 14 show the consumption with the levels among the red line. they resulted in the maintenance of ships and the readiness to meet the operational tempo. it placed heavy demands on sailors and marines as they increased by a third and showing the upper left quad rant in green. over this time as well, they continued at one to two against to three. as you know, last year's budget
made specific targeted investments with investments in ship building and infrastructure and hiring. concurrent with those, the calendar year showing the lower right quad rant and readiness consumption that matched deployment levels. the request built on those investments with additional critical investment and personnel and aircraft readiness investments as we continue to recover and reduce ship in backlogs. at the same time this adapts the force to reflect key changes in the environment. we are seeing increased reliance on the system with shipping traffic increasing and arctic trade opening and technologies making resources more accessible. overall it is more heavily used and stressed and more contested
than ever before. the growth of the global information system is driving an accelerating rate of change and spanning new colors to artificial intelligence. beyond those, it's important to note that the competitors themselves had a number of times today. the first time in 25 year, the u.s. is facing a great power competition with russia and china advancing high capabilities. others exploit the key trend as well. ron's pursuit of advanced missiles and non-state actors exploiting the information systems that threaten security around the world. as they are stating, the character of warfare is dynamic. this budget addresses that by making investments to fight with decisive capability over the full range of the expeditionary
bases from all domains. the fiscal context for executing the missions in that dynamic remains challenging. the base by defunding to show this today, the constat in blue is over than the levels that made it with the strategy. this concludes this year and the fy 17 levels of pb 16. this fiscal context has new thinking to provide the best balanced force as we continue current operations and we maintained our readiness and modernize. in this budget, the navy department leadership integrated that context and the constraints across the spectrum of focused investments to provide the best force.
the chips and aircraft and weapons. the hard choice is to achieve that balance for structure and military production and responsibility sustainment and innovation and reform. that sustains the advantage including an unmanned system. cradle to grave tracking of the ability. so let's start with military personnel. our ability to execute the mission depends on the navy and marine corps team. active and reserve and navy civilians and their families. the sailor office continue leading efforts to improve the health of our sailors. they will propose adjustments to see how we track and train and inspire the best force in the world. in the accounts, both line and strength with the structure.
the budget funds a 1.6% pay raise this is increased installations that includes the helicopter mine hunting ability and fund the levels. in military personnel decreases, all of which will be achieved and the department will seek the proposal to deactivate the air wing. this proposal will allow them to match the number of air wings to the number of carriers. the complex overhaul and extended availability they went through the aheadness and proficiency by reducing the dwell time that currently can be up to four years for the wings attached to carriers and
extended phases. overall this approach provides the best balance for the structure and the league response plan. >> the learning initiative is piling on a new approach through mobile learning and new kong tent and distributed infrastructure. this is a redesigned conat the present time that will decrease the number of sailors in classrooms all the time. the right side of this slide, the navy's reserve component that reflects the cyber warfare to the personnel. collectively, the highlighted adjustments of military personnel to mission requirements. that came down to a sustained level. earlier than planned.
it's one to two with the active force and to for the reserves. at this level, they testified that the combat separation and will turn to operations elsewhere. with those insufficient including theater cooperation. it decreases over 2700. backlogs are targeted at the maintenance centers. while overall working capital funds declined from fy 16 to 17,
this budget grows to address aviation maintenance backlogs. it funts an additional 750 navy and marine corps civilians under the same initiatives to increase military personnel. the department continues reductions from the 20% reduction in fy 14 and reduced it by 2000. the departments of rateness are focused on supporting through the response plan and operational tempo requested by the commanders and executing the mission guidance. they will reach the expected service lines and properly training the people to deploy
forward. the metrics are funded to the historic levels shown here. the ship readiness as with the 16 request and the operations at 58 days when deployed and 24 days per quarter when not deployed. they are funded to 100% and this includes funding from earlier to improve the through put and additional infrastructure investment of $150 million. in aviation readiness, the navy or marine corps deployed all units at the rating. the funding increases from the fy 16 level and continues to increase the availability of the deppo maintenance and reduced numbers of aircraft and other series. aviation deppo maintenance is funded at the capacity. 85% of total requirement and that's an increase from the 83%
level funded in fy 16. this targets the deppo maintenance and other aircraft issues through critical train initiatives and hiring of civilian engineers and engineering and investments. the marine corps provides a ready and capable marine corps of operations. the fy 17 is leaner and stretching your marine corps while modernizing to keep pace. the budget prioritizing the rateness to meet today's operational requirements. non-deployed units will not have the sources in time to require to deploy immediately. the ground equipment readiness, 50% returned to operating forces. this funds 79% of the remaining
base line. with the foundation of the navy, essential to the commanders. he had the efforts that will include the replacement program. leading to procurement of the first boat. the replacement program is funded at $13.2 billion. with fy 21 with the full funding. funding continues in fy 17 for the uss john f. kennedy and for the second year of procurement, cvn 80. both are on track and the submarines are at 20 and wanted fy 21 when the boat was introduced. second fy 19 in virginia and all subsequent will be the pay load
variance which provide an increase in capacity from 12 to 40. continue funding is provided each year for two. the second destroyer is projected to be the first vary ant and incorporating the advanced radar and anti-air and ballistic missile operations. the version is introduced one ship and in 20 and two ships in fy 21. we procure 33 others with seven more forecast outside for a total of 40 ships. we continue to procure the mission packages and changes to align the mission packages with the revised mix to occur beyond 21. lha 8 is funded and the replacement for the lhd class. with a delivery of 27 in
portland and lha 17, the navy's ship total grows to 33 steps by fy 19. the first replacement was funded in fy 16 followed by one per year. the total procurement is 17 oilers and this include advanced procurement for a block buy and $45 million a ship reflected in the budget. the department appreciates the support and building appropriation. changes in the budget reflect that congressional action. they reflect the reduction of seven small combatants and the phasing to later although ship service lives are studied. overall 38 ships are funded over fy 17. 13 ships are delivered and six are retired and bringing that
battle force count to 287. over the fit up, this plan grows to 308 by 2021. we currently have two cruisers inducted to the availabilities. fy 16, we induct two more. the balance between current and future capability compels the navy to propose to congress inducting the seven newest cruisers to phase modernizations. this is an approach that leverages savings of $3 billion in operating costs to provide the best overall forced balance and main tapes the capable platforms from the force into the 2040s that allows us to reallocate on the fleet. this is the best way to update the cruisers within the resores we have available. we are choosing to retain a more capable cruiser fleet over a
lesser capacity today. the department has committed more than $500 million to ensure the return to the fleet to meet our future requirements. aircraft procurement reflects the fielding forces that fight over the spectrum of combat. 94 combat between two f 18 replacements and 20 f 35s. production increases from the acquisition plan and accelerating the fifth generation fighter transition. in combination with the five additional, two in 17 and 14 proposed, these investments help to mitigate the shortage. the profile reflects the procurement and maintains the production plan to complete the buy. the rotary wing guide reflects
small decreases. the ch 53 k replacement for the echo helicopter completed the first flight this year and production of two aircraft begins at 17 and leading to an additional capability. over fy 18, they fund the first 24 or 48 to replace the c 2. forecast ioc is fy 21. the quantities for triton. the weapons procurement, they have a net increase of 63 weapons while increased by 900 to meet fiscal constraints. the navy begins procurement of two new missiles. air to ground missiles and the long range missile. this is a multiservice air launch missile and can be used
with an ioc and fy 19. the rise in response without urgent need for an anti-surface weapon and on track for a capability in fy 19. in other aircraft weapons, the radiation guided missile range, requirements have been refined driving the addition and risk reduction phase. this is expected to enter development and complete testing in early fy 24. the navy had 100 tomahawk missiles to sustain the base until the fy 19 line funding starts. they involve the procurement to get the block two missile with that starting in fy 18. with the initial buy, they begin the fy 17. overall while weapons
procurement decreases, this budget invests $1.5 billion to including the next generation and the offensive anti-surface and tomahawk upgrades. the fy 17 budget request provides substantial investments and the fielded systems. and the information and electronic warfare, the consolidated float programs and the surface of warfare program were advanced to outpace the threat. they provide improvements to all the networks including in cyber security. they have been installed on 25 ships and 12 on progress. this funds an additional ten installations. they provide upgrades to the ships and select 32 systems that provide detection and protection
from anti-ship missiles. this capability is integral to the maneuver warfare dominance and the budget provides $275 million for procurement and in research and development. the marine corps continues to balance ground equipment to make sure the marines are modernizing to dominate the future fights. the marine corps budget of $1.4 billion funds major programs and the joint vehicle. the procurement of ammunition of $730 million buys vital ammunition for the war fighter including $6 million that replenishes weapons used. >> the research development, science and technology remains steady at the total budget across the fit up. the other end of the spectrum, they are transitioning out of
the investment into the procurement. the advanced missile defense radar and helicopter. in ship building and demand systems, they include the programmatic priority. how a replacement program will fit 3.9 billion and leading to the first construction. virginia pay load module investments leads to the first bate construction. the f 35 is funded to maintain the ioc of 2015 and it's on track for the decision and fy 19. unmanned systems and the carrier launch striker program will be restructured in fy to bring high demand to the carrier air wing in the mid 20s. intelligence, surveillance and targeting and limited strike and tanking. this program increases air wing
capability by freeing strike aircraft and the combat missions. the fatigue light while enhancing the long endurance capability. analysis of growth options will continue in future budget cycles. the fy 17 includes $150 million and maturation with unmanned under sea vehicles. endurance and pay load hosting and delivery capability. the marine corps continues to be the amphibious vehicle. the development contractors, two were awarded. the department continues to prioritize funding of cyber capabilities with efforts on operations and training and equipment and investments in cyber sites and technology and assurance with the strength of our net works. the navy stood up and the suber
security division to have a strategic approach. this budget includes an increase of $370 million over the fit up across the spectrum of programs leading to significant improvements. to address the imperative to increase agility, the department-wide approach we intend to work closely on the oversight that ensures use of the rapid prototyping fundings. the budget proivides a rapid prototyping emission. they have an effective navy core with investments with laser technology and alternative
fuels. fy 17 budget has sustainment at 70% navy and 70% marine corps to meet the fiscal constraints. down from 85% navy and 84% marine corps, the sustainment funding will be prioritized to preserve the light on the facilities and key components across the services. the deppo investment exceeds the 6% legislative requirement and 7.1% is across the ship yards and the marine corps deppos. finally the program reflects a 35% reduction compared to fy 16. the department continues to pressurize military construction and the projects to the department's most critical needs. they have 36 projects with base line. these include key quality initiatives such as the center of paris island and the naval
ship yard and fund projects supporting new weapons such as a tight on mission control facility and f 35 maintenance hanger at the air station buford. they are funded to support the facility over three projects that are deferred to later due to fiscal balancing. the ioc remains unchanged. in family housing, they support operations and leasing. 73,000 units worldwide. wrapping up the overview, the budget provides the investment provided to execute them with the mission guidance. a challenging context that reflects the best balance of
investments across people, presence, readiness and capability. across the full scope, we echl vised innovation and reform. the advantage and strengthens our team. making the hard forces, they have a larger fleet and more sustainable and marine corps presence and improved capability. this completes my overview. we look forward to your questions. >> please wait until i call on you. >> megan with u.s. knave institute news. can you talk more about the cruiser modernization plan whether the ships would be kept in the planned installed or needed as a replacement or getting them out sooner or how that fits in with the efforts and achieve more ships in the fleet. >> sure. so addressing the latter part first, it is a hard choice in
the budget year in particular. it has a number of compelling numbers to it. resubmitting this to the congress. the plan would have brought in two more cruisers into fy 17. this brings in five. it provides by doing that some flexibility within that period that phases the modernization period. that's advantageous because it helps us load the industrial base and as there peaks and dips in the industrial base that these ships can be adjusted to come into that period. the long-term plan would have them and continue to have them with the cruzzers retired on one of the phases. the cruisers would then come
out. the department leadership spoke with commitment to bringing these cruisers back into the fleet. we have this important air defense commander capable one per strike group into the 40s. the evidence of that commitment is the $500 million invested in the budget to make the plan work and as part of the proposal as well. the department is proposing increased oversight that would be with changes with the cruisers. was that helpful? >> is this funded through the funding that you have gotten in the past? >> it's a combination. it continues to execute this plan that funds additional money. >> last week the secretary
announced $40 billion. the under water capabilities and can you point to anything that benefitted from that increase that was not already part of the plan. if you look at what he said, those are embedded. >> things that were not embedded is the ohio replacement fund. there additional funding provided in the department. the virginia pay load module as well. if you look at the numbers compared to the prior year, that is above as well. unmanned under water vehicles and the $150 million across the fit up as well. this is substantial and built on the operation that we had last year operating unmanned and under water vehicles there. that will be a number of elements that are reflecting increased emphasis. >> $2 billion by 4,000 tomahawks. i found 100 and you showed that.
what happened there? >> i can't speak to the factoid that you described. >> $2 billion? >> i'm sorry. this is what is in our budget.f. >> this is what's in our budget. >> on vpm and the sea bars, if i remember the term correctly, there's more money for vpms. how many more virginia class subs over the history of time actually end up getting vpms or shift the profile to the left and if so how much. sea bars did you mention that would have a striking ability because i haven't heard that before. >> virginia pay load module profile is the second fy-'19 boat and then every boat thereafter. there's the change there. >> before it was -- >> i believe it was one -- so it's an increase from the prior. and your question on sea bars
was on whether it had limited strike. exactly right. the real value of this restructure is that it incrementally gets at the manned/unmanned interface and operation on the carrier deck in the air wing by the mid-'20s and brings these highly required capabilities, yes, limited strike, isr and t and mission tanking. it's a smart acquisition approach to incrementally burn down that risk and we'll continue to look at developing additional capability. >> how different is that from what you envisioned for? >> u class i would cite as main difference nonpermissive isr. it was a much more aggressive increment of capability just to get that platform. at the same time as that was going to be platform to develop the learning, how to operate unmanned off the carrier big
deck. this is a quicker mid-'20s ioc and get experience while we build the capability as well. >> on the sea bars, you evidently measured aqr 25. could you explain that. q 25, it's an unmanned aircraft. but sea bars the carrier based aerial refueling system. so there seems to have a certain identity crisis and i would like you to say what is the primary mission of the first iteration of this aircraft and also can you explain -- the funding drops to about a fifth of the previous year's rate. 435 million down 89 million. interestingly enough it's the same designation that u class had. there's no change there. essentially has picked up in the current iteration as this moves forward with the same
designation. absolutely, the budget documentation for the carrier based aerial refueling system, i would cite all those requirements, all those capabilities. the mission tanking is going to be critical to make the air wing more effective in delivering projected power forward. but the isr and t long endurance will be critical as well. so, it's the total package of those integration of required capabilities that's being sought. the funding profile reflects the change in the restructure from where u class was in last year to how this program will be executed going forward. >> you don't need any more money? what's your anticipation for next year's level? back to 400 million? >> i won't project or speculate on what next year's budget will be but it's fair to say as this
now accelerates this restructure that there will be a higher fidelity profile based on that work. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask you lcs when the secretary of the navy negotiated with the shipyards in 2010 to do a duel source program significant savings. as you get ready to down source to single source, what are the implications. do you have some thoughts on that? >> there's work to be done but ate great question. certainly underpins the long term navy strategy of injecting competition and getting savings to the government through competition ship building. i think the competition it's fair to say is going to drive some significant savings to the department as well. in terms of how after that
initial block of frigates, i won't speculate. as you month the navy's approach to acquisition puts a premium on competition and created tremendous value for the taxpayer. >> does that mean higher costs? >> say the question again. >> having a single source instead of a dual source doesn't that increase the cost. >> there are so many factors i wouldn't make a blanket statement like that. i would just say again our acquisition approach -- if you look at ship building overall, the margin of ship building, you'll see the value of the way the navy buys ships through a competitive approach. >> lcs memo a couple of moments ago secretary carter directed the navy to either maintain or increase key missions, production. but as he said there's a modest increase in '17 and a pretty big
drop off. how did you prioritize on how to ultimately become a bill payer. >> if you look at the details of munitions and we'll take you through some details after this session, there is focus on increases in specific munitions, some aviation missiles and tactical tomahawk. you see not in the wpm charts strong investment in future missions. so that's essentially the prioritization, but it clearly reflected some of the hard choices and the fiscal pressure as we allocated risk to get the best overall balance. >> admiral, the navy was headed to 330,000 in strength.
it's now looking at 322,9. seems to be going down from there. what drove the change in direction? and i guess what do sailors need to know about their jobs in the future. >> that's a great question. sailors need to know on the deck plate level, hangar deck of our squa squandrons, the 92% fit, 95% fail. deck plate level we have a strong commitment to sustain the same good man we have now. i mentioned the fact the officer man increases as well. the reductions, the main drivers that you saw number one is the deactivation of carrier wing 14. that's going to be down through natural attrition. those sailors and those officers will have, be strongly focused on making that ease of transition as they move elsewhere into other squadrons. the other was this innovative
approach to ready able and learning. that's not built in units. those are savings in what's known as an individual's account. individuals that are in transit, in school houses through this very focused approach, mobile learning, distribute learning and it's not, you know, it's not the old computer base training, not clicking through a powerpoint. it's gaining technology. use of aavatars. getting them to the fleet and chief properly trained. pilot program right now.kre the bottom line at the deck plate level, equal or improved pose tour in terms pose -- poseposture.
>> that's all the time we have for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm going to just go through the highlights quickly and then i'll get right to your questions. today we're here to brief our budget request of $7.5 billion in fy-2017. the strategy in the '17 request increasing by 17. preserving the homeland and regional missile development and capabilities. from october 2014 to the present we've executed 20 flight tests. let me give you a few highlights. >> it continues to support the efforts to go to 44g bis by the
end. flights the flight testing which is the test requirements, increases the liability funding and continues the fire-control and software testing. in addition we continue on with the redesign kill vehicle and requesting $274 million for that continuance and flight test is still scheduled in late 2018. we'll begin deployment that in the 2020 time frame and undertake the other gbi improvements. continue liability improvements, technology modernization, everything we briefed last year continues this year in those important areas. shift gears in to epaa. it was deployed in 2011. we declared technical capability of epaa phase two in december. we continue to